I have a class defined in a header like so (abbreviated): class CairoRenderer { public: CairoRenderer(); ~CairoRenderer();
Edited to provider a little more clarity. Apologies for confusing everyone. This is under Windows. I have a static library that开发者_运维百科 implements a class using the pimpl idiom. The pimpl hea
It is my understanding that the primary b开发者_运维知识库enefit of the pimpl idiom is to hide the data members in the implementation file instead of the header. However, templates need to be fully de
I know about the pimpl-idiom which in C would look something like this: // foobar.h struct FooBar { char *someString;
I\'m implementing several classes using the pimpl idiom and am coming across some design issues. Firstly, I\'ve always seen pimpl done like this
If you have an object B that needsa copy of a private member of 开发者_运维技巧an object A, and the private member is hidden by a Pimpl, how do you make it happen without exposing your internals?
I am writing a C++ header in which I define a class A { // ... }; that I would like to hide from the outside world (because it may change or even be removed in future versions of this header).
I am trying to use the pimpl pattern and define the implementation class in an anonymous namespace. Is this possible in C++? My failed attempt is described below.
I\'ve basically implemented a proposal, my question is, has it been done, and if so, where? And/or is there a better way to do what I\'m doing? Sorry about the length of this post, I didn\'t know a be
In this question I asked \"pimpl: shared_ptr or unique_ptr\" I\'ve been convinced that the proper usage of the pimpl idiom is to use a unique_ptr, not a shared_ptr. It should act to the user as if the
加载中,请稍侯......