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

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-12-21 20:45:29

At 05:47 PM 12/21/2001, Ross Smith wrote:

 >Peter Dimov wrote:
 >>
 >> From: "Fernando Cacciola" <fcacciola_at_[hidden]>
 >> > On second thought, this conclusion leads me back to my original
 >proposal:
 >> > use the technique of grin_ptr<> with
 >> > scoped_ptr<>.
 >> >
 >> > It doesn't make sense to change scoped_ptr<> though,
 >>
 >> [...]
 >>
 >> On second thought, this actually makes sense to me. Scoped_ptr
 >requirements
 >> will change slightly, in that it will require a complete type only when 

 >its
 >> constructor is instantiated.
 >>
 >> sizeof(scoped_ptr) will increase, but since scoped_ptr is noncopyable,
 >this
 >> will not have much impact (it's not meant to be put in containers.)
 >
 >As some of us keep pointing out :-) it wouldn't be necessary to make a
 >global choice between the two strategies if you use a policy-based
 >pointer.

Yes, agreed.

I've just re-read Andrei's smart pointer chapter.  The policy-based 
approach seems much more likely to be widely acceptable than endlessly 
trying to tweak a small number of smart pointer classes.

--Beman