Re: [boost] BCB5, the pimpl idiom bug and the new Unit Test Framework

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-12-21 10:04:59

From: "Fernando Cacciola" <fcacciola_at_[hidden]>
> How about what Beman suggested about including the current impl_ptr<> as
an
> implementation detail inside the Test library?
> Do you think there could be some dark corners in impl_ptr<> that could
cause
> problems if used in this particular way?

Dark corners? In my code? Never! ;-)

Now seriously, I don't expect that impl_ptr could cause problems. Still, if
I was the maintainer of Boost.Test, I wouldn't have used it. Every bit of
additional complexity increases the probability of something going wrong on
a platform that the author cannot test on. (*)

Adding a detail::impl_ptr (through the back door) as a part of Boost.Test
doesn't feel right, either; it might need to evolve a bit further before
being ready.

Of course if Gennadiy decides to use impl_ptr in Boost.Test, I'll do
whatever needs to be done.

--
Peter Dimov
Multi Media Ltd.
(*) Actually I've seen it reported that an older version of SunCC has
problems with variant.hpp that uses impl_ptr.hpp. I can't remember the exact
details.