protected d-pointers

Richard Moore richmoore44 at
Wed Feb 6 22:50:49 GMT 2008

On 2/6/08, Matthias Kretz <kretz at> 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?



More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list