"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto@cs.auc.dk> writes:
"Rob Stewart" <stewart@sig.com> wrote in message news:200504271721.j3RHLiS27805@vanzandt.balstatdev.susq.com... | From: "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto@cs.auc.dk>
| > | > trying to make a polymorphic object behave like a value object is | > | > confusing a best. | > | | > | Who does it confuse? Pimpl is a commonly used and well understood | > | pattern for doing just that. | > | > Pimpl is an ugly hack for compilation firewalls. | | Regardless of your opinion of the technique, Dave's statement | holds.
there is no requirement that a Pimpl class should be copyable.
What is your point? When I wrote "Pimpl" I was referring to a programming idiom; people commonly use a clone() function on the impl to make a Pimpl copyable, and I claim it causes no major confusion. Whether or not some hypothetical textbook description of "Pimpl" has a copyability requirement is irrelevant. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com