Marc, Thank you for your input. Much appreciated. That's fair enough that you are not overwhelmingly impressed. :-) I do agree that "the savings don't seem to be large compared to hand-written code". Although the main advantages that I see are not on the implementation side but rather on the interface side which is pure interface. Otherwise, all the scaffolding currently hidden in that pimpl will go to the base class. As for verbosity, it's certainly a matter of taste. I personally hate writing comments. So, I tend to write self-commented code. :-) Thanks again, Vladimir. "Marc Mutz" <marc@kdab.net> wrote in message news:<200711061818.54220.marc@kdab.net>... I've been more thinking about the attached scenario. I'm not sure it's worth it, since the savings don't seem to be large compared to hand-written code, and the need to spell out the forwarding Base(implementation*) is a bit ugly (maybe that can be solved in C++0x?), but that should give you the idea. Maybe someone better at template magic than I am can coerce this into a workable thing. The need for verboseness in referring to pimpl<Class>::implementation strikes me as a likely candidate for improvement, e.g. Thanks, Marc Thanks, Vladimir.