Re: auto_ptr compile error
George wrote:
Hi David,
1.
1. A quick search of this group shows at least two threads on the pimpl idiom
that you have taken part in, so you should know the meaning of "compilation
firewall". If not, look it up.
I do not mean I do not understand what is compiler firewall. I mean in the
current discussion, how this concept applies to the context.
In my understanding, compiler firewall blocked in current context means when
we change the declaration of the class, we have to recompile the template
class, right?
2.
2. In his very first post, Tamas showed how to "fix" this problem by moving the
definition of ~Owner() to after the full definition of the class Thing. That is
what we have been talking about. So that is how you can fix it. Just because
code violates the standard does not mean in practice that it will not work on
most/all compilers.
My fix is not moving the definition of ~Owner() to after the full definition
of class Thing, but to move the full declaration of Thing before the use of
template class auto_ptr.
Here is my fix. Agree with my above description about how I fixed it?
[snip]
George;
1. The meaning of compilation firewall is always the same. Your understanding is
correct.
2. How many times must we go over this? Your fix satisfies the standard, works,
but is not desirable if you want a compilation firewall for class Thing. The
other fix violates the standard, seems to work, and hides the definition of
Thing from clients of Owner.
Please read Alf Steinberg's second reply in the thread "delete zero out its
operand". It describes exactly my frustration with answering your questions.
People here are very happy to answer your questions. But to keep answering the
same question, over and over and over again, gets very frustrating.
--
David Wilkinson
Visual C++ MVP