From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-15 11:31:10
David Gruener wrote:
> Tobias Schwinger wrote:
> > As someone who uses the handle/body idiom quite frequently, I'd say it can be very useful.
> > But
> > o for noncopyable classes (90% of the "pimpl candidates" in my projects) scoped_ptr works fine
> > o in other places shared_ptr or intrusive_ptr work, but needs extra work to implement deep copy
> No. The boost smart pointers are _not_ directly suitable for pimpls, because
> they don't propagate const.
This also makes them less useful in other contexts IMO. Just because I
use vector<shared_ptr<T>>, doesn't mean that I want to give up
const-correctness. And there is no efficent way to convert
vector<shared_ptr<T>> to vector<share_ptr<const T>>.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk