Summary: I vote NO to including pimpl_ptr in boost. There is a better implementation (entitled grin_ptr) available from Alan Griffiths' website (http://www.octopull.demon.co.uk/c++-writing.html). Alan describes a new revision of his code in the April 2006 issue of Overload (http://accu.org/index.php/aboutus/latestjournals), but I don't think this is on his website as yet. Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:
- Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
Yes. I've written smart pointers before, and used the pimpl idiom. I am aware of the issues that surround such usage.
- What is your evaluation of the design?
The policy based design is overly complex. The lazy initialization feature is really orthogonal to the use of the pimpl idiom.
- What is your evaluation of the implementation?
The current implementation requires that the implementation type T be complete for the copy constructor, assignment operator and destructor, in order to perform the deep copies. Therefore classes that use pimpl will need to provide out-of-line definitions of these members, even if they are empty (which is the expected case).
- What is your evaluation of the documentation?
The documentation seems to clearly explain the intended usage, though there are a few typos (e.g. inconsistent case in the class names/constructor names in the example).
- What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
Reasonable. Pimpl is a relatively common idiom, and it would be good to have a boost library that addressed the appropriate issues.
- Did you try to use the library? With what compiler?
Yes. g++ 4.0.1
Did you have any problems?
Yes. pimpl_ptr.hpp line 129 needs getNew() to be qualified with this->, since it is a non-dependent name, but it is defined in a dependent base class. As mentioned above, the implementation doesn't match the docs, and the gameplayer example from the docs doesn't compile, as the compiler-generated members of CGamePlayer need CGamePlayerValues to be a complete type.
- How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study?
Reasonably in-depth study of code. Quick glance through docs. Anthony -- Anthony Williams Software Developer Just Software Solutions Ltd http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk