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

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-12-26 20:13:12

At 09:01 AM 12/26/2001, Peter Dimov wrote:

 >From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
 >> At 02:58 PM 12/21/2001, Peter Dimov wrote:
 >>
 >>  >Do you have a concrete example of a real-world project where 
increasing
 >> the
 >>  >size of scoped_ptr from 4 to 8 makes a big difference?
 >>
 >> Commercial code I maintain is full of objects which contain only
 >> scoped_ptr<>'s.
 >
 >This doesn't really answer my question, does it.

Sorry, I should have been more explicit.

Yes, it does matter because doubling the size when there are a lot of small 
objects is objectionable.

 >> The whole point of scoped_ptr<> is simplicity.  Don't make it more
 >> complicated; that's not what it is all about.
 >
 >Depends on how you measure simplicity. The specification doesn't become
 >more complicated. Anyway, I simply asked a question, that's all.

I see what you mean about the spec.  But still...

On a related topic, I've been looking at the Loki SmartPtr to see if it 
really can handle some or all of the needs we've discussed here from time 
to time.  I'll try to post a report in a day or two.

--Beman