From: Thomas Klimpel <Thomas.Klimpel@synopsys.com>
Did I totally misunderstood you here, or was this comparison intended as a ironic remark, or is my understanding old "old std::auto_ptr" incorrect, or ...?
It was indeed half ironic and half not. For non-copyable classes std::auto_ptr IS better then Boost.Pimpl as Boost.Pimpl does not even provide support of non-copyable implementations. So if the class in non-copyable std::auto_ptr is INDEED better, because in such case auto_ptr == scoped_ptr However it is also irony as IMHO it is easier to workaround auto_ptr copy/assign issue manually then use Boost.Pimpl that requires that my class would be derived from some other fancy (and almost useless class) writing a verbose code. Artyom Beilis -------------- CppCMS - C++ Web Framework: http://cppcms.sf.net/ CppDB - C++ SQL Connectivity: http://cppcms.sf.net/sql/cppdb/ P.S.: Shame that auto_ptr was deprecated...