Comments on: Qt-HowTo: Private Classes and D-Pointers

By: zchydem

zchydem — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:03:19 +0000

@cymurs Thank you for reading my blog!

By: cymurs

cymurs — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 07:50:32 +0000

Thanks for writing!
I gain better knowledges.

By: ab

ab — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 13:05:54 +0000

d-pointer technique is an implementation of the pimpl concept, so it is essentially the same thing you are talking about.

By: zchydem

zchydem — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 06:28:21 +0000

@ctarsoaga

I better take a look at pimpl. Thanks for sharing this information.

By: ctarsoaga

ctarsoaga — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:49:35 +0000

in c++, pimpl does more in some cases than interfaces + private classes do

pimpl can (also) remove the need for data members! => cleaner interface, faster compile times…

as soon as you use aggregation / add a member (no matter if it points to a pure! interface or not) into a class inside a c++ header, pimpl can be your friend

By: kypeli

kypeli — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 10:34:39 +0000

@pepavondepo

If I understood you correctly, I am sure you can do that too from a technical point of view. But if you ask what is wrong with that in comparison to Qt’s d_func() macros is that Qt’s way is more elegant, straight forward and hides a lot of the ugliness from the developer itself. I mean, why would you do something yourself that Qt can already provide for you

By: zchydem

zchydem — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 09:49:07 +0000

@pepavondepo

Do you mean that the functionality that MyClassPrivate provides would be inherited privately to the subclass (MyClass)?

I didn’t quite get what do you mean this approach? Can you provide an example?

By: pepavondepo

pepavondepo — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:18:02 +0000

What’s wrong with public interfaces (pure abstract class), which serves as base for inherited private implementation?