Comments on: C++ Internal Classes http://www.danielhall.me/2009/08/c-internal-classes/ Because the Internet doesn't have enough opinions already Wed, 13 Apr 2011 12:10:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Daniel http://www.danielhall.me/2009/08/c-internal-classes/comment-page-1/#comment-52 Daniel Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:46:16 +0000 http://www.danielhall.me/?p=266#comment-52 Cheers for the double checking. And you are completely right I should have compiled it first. I've corrected the post. As your link points out its also called the 'Cheshire Cat Technique' with the inner class being called the cheshire class, and the pointer being called the smile. :D Cheers for the double checking. And you are completely right I should have compiled it first. I’ve corrected the post.
As your link points out its also called the ‘Cheshire Cat Technique’ with the inner class being called the cheshire class, and the pointer being called the smile. :D

]]> By: Austin http://www.danielhall.me/2009/08/c-internal-classes/comment-page-1/#comment-51 Austin Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:49:48 +0000 http://www.danielhall.me/?p=266#comment-51 "Chesire Class"? You totally made that up, and didn't compile the example. "InnerClass internal;" needs to be a pointer as the compiler hasn't seen its definition and doesn't know its size. Also, the virtual keyword is only used in the declaration (.h), not the definition (.cpp). This is the Pimpl (Pointer to Implementation) Idiom. http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?PimplIdiom “Chesire Class”? You totally made that up, and didn’t compile the example.

“InnerClass internal;” needs to be a pointer as the compiler hasn’t seen its definition and doesn’t know its size.

Also, the virtual keyword is only used in the declaration (.h), not the definition (.cpp).

This is the Pimpl (Pointer to Implementation) Idiom. http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?PimplIdiom

]]>