Re: [boost] [review][pimpl_ptr] Pimpl Pointer review begins

From: Asger Mangaard (tmb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-05-18 03:59:36

David Gruener wrote:
> I'm not sure what this utility is trying to address.
> The motivation is not to write down constructor, destructor, assignment
> operator
> and so on. But, unfortunately, you have to.
Why do you think that? No, you don't have to write a constructor,
destructor, or an assigment operator for the pimpl_ptr to work. Please
look at the example/default.cpp file.

> Smart pointer or not, with a pimpl, the implicit generated versions of
> these
> operations are all wrong, because the compiler only has a forward
> declaration
> to the hidden class and therefore can't create, destroy and compare it.
Again, I don't know why you think this it true - unless I'm missing
something. When constructed/destructed the T type isn't undefined since
it's defined in the cpp file. That's the fact I've build this library on
top of.

> Even with some smart pointer you have to write down those operations,
> while leaving the function bodies in the cpp file empty.
Still I don't agree with you. Do you have an example to showcase this?

Regards,
Asger