Re: [Boost-users] pimpl and boost

From: David Gruener (gruenedd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-28 04:49:44

Hello,

thanks for your answers. Yes, of course, i
looked at the boost smart pointers.
But, well, isn't a shared_ptr a shared_ptr because it
shares ownership (via ref. counting)? :]
What i expect is, that pimpl defaults to *deep*copying of
the hidden members, when copying the object. (As it would happen,
if there is no PImpl object on default copy construction).
I don't get it, why shared_ptr is suggested without any hint
(do i overlooked that?) that the private members are now shared
(that basicly means "are the same") across the objects,
which isn't the *primary* goal of PImpl, IMHO.
The primary goal of PImpl is to hide private members and
therefore act as a compilation firewall. Sharing
private data is nice in cases but should *not* be the default
behaviour.
   I think that still leaves my question if boost has
a template for member hiding, with the (IMHO nice) results as
documented in the url i gave. And, if not, whouln't it make
sense to have such one?

Best Regards,
David