protected d-pointers

[Richard Moore]

On 2/6/08, Matthias Kretz <kretz at kde.org> wrote:
> I suggest we require kdelibs classes to only use protected d-pointers so that
> the shared-d-pointer pattern can be used when needed. Once we need to keep BC
> on Windows we cannot change private members to protected members anymore. So
> we can still do this now...

Surely this defeats the point? If we are making the d-pointer part of
the defined API then we might as well not have them at all. Please
could you make it clear what we would gain by this?

Cheers

Rich.