Am 26.05.2011 11:22, schrieb Artyom Beilis:
The only advantage I can see in boost.pimpl over scoped_ptr or auto_ptr is that it does not require explicit destructor.
i.e.
class Foo : boost::noncopyable { public: Foo(); int x() const; void x(int v); private: struct data; std::auto_ptr<data> d; };
No good. You need to add
~Foo();
So it would know to destroy Foo::Data correctly.
You can't use std::auto_ptr for pimpl implementation in portable code. Doing so is undefined behavior. To quote ISO/IEC 14882:2003 (§17.4.3.6, p. 329): "In particular, the effects are undefined in the following cases: [...] — if an incomplete type (3.9) is used as a template argument when instantiating a template component, unless specifically allowed for that component." which applies to most standard library types.