Reference Counting in C++ OO-Style

Question

I came accross an intriguing implementation of a base class on the C++ FAQ that, according to my naive understanding, could serve as an alternative to some of the smart pointer implementations (e.g. shared_ptr). Here's the example code verbatim, but please follow the link above for an explanation:

class Fred {
public:

  static Fred create1(std::string const& s, int i);
  static Fred create2(float x, float y);

  Fred(Fred const& f);
  Fred& operator= (Fred const& f);
 ~Fred();

  void sampleInspectorMethod() const;   // No changes to this object
  void sampleMutatorMethod();           // Change this object

  ...

private:

  class Data {
  public:
    Data() : count_(1) { }
    Data(Data const& d) : count_(1) { }              // Do NOT copy the 'count_' member!
    Data& operator= (Data const&) { return *this; }  // Do NOT copy the 'count_' member!
    virtual ~Data() { assert(count_ == 0); }         // A virtual destructor
    virtual Data* clone() const = 0;                 // A virtual constructor
    virtual void sampleInspectorMethod() const = 0;  // A pure virtual function
    virtual void sampleMutatorMethod() = 0;
  private:
    unsigned count_;   // count_ doesn't need to be protected
    friend class Fred; // Allow Fred to access count_
  };

  class Der1 : public Data {
  public:
    Der1(std::string const& s, int i);
    virtual void sampleInspectorMethod() const;
    virtual void sampleMutatorMethod();
    virtual Data* clone() const;
    ...
  };

  class Der2 : public Data {
  public:
    Der2(float x, float y);
    virtual void sampleInspectorMethod() const;
    virtual void sampleMutatorMethod();
    virtual Data* clone() const;
    ...
  };

  Fred(Data* data);
  // Creates a Fred smart-reference that owns *data
  // It is private to force users to use a createXXX() method
  // Requirement: data must not be NULL

  Data* data_;   // Invariant: data_ is never NULL
};

Fred::Fred(Data* data) : data_(data)  { assert(data != NULL); }

Fred Fred::create1(std::string const& s, int i) { return Fred(new Der1(s, i)); }
Fred Fred::create2(float x, float y)            { return Fred(new Der2(x, y)); }

Fred::Data* Fred::Der1::clone() const { return new Der1(*this); }
Fred::Data* Fred::Der2::clone() const { return new Der2(*this); }

Fred::Fred(Fred const& f)
  : data_(f.data_)
{
  ++data_->count_;
}

Fred& Fred::operator= (Fred const& f)
{
  // DO NOT CHANGE THE ORDER OF THESE STATEMENTS!
  // (This order properly handles self-assignment)
  // (This order also properly handles recursion, e.g., if a Fred::Data contains Freds)
  Data* const old = data_;
  data_ = f.data_;
  ++data_->count_;
  if (--old->count_ == 0) delete old;
  return *this;
}

Fred::~Fred()
{
  if (--data_->count_ == 0) delete data_;
}

void Fred::sampleInspectorMethod() const
{
  // This method promises ("const") not to change anything in *data_
  // Therefore we simply "pass the method through" to *data_:
  data_->sampleInspectorMethod();
}

void Fred::sampleMutatorMethod()
{
  // This method might need to change things in *data_
  // Thus it first checks if this is the only pointer to *data_
  if (data_->count_ > 1) {
    Data* d = data_->clone();   // The Virtual Constructor Idiom
    --data_->count_;
    data_ = d;
  }
  assert(data_->count_ == 1);

  // Now we "pass the method through" to *data_:
  data_->sampleMutatorMethod();
}

I don't see this approach being used in any C++ libraries; although it seems quite elegant. Assuming a single-threaded environment, for the sake of simplicity, please answer the following questions:

Is this a suitable alternative to the smart pointer approach for managing the lifetime of objects, or is it just asking for trouble?
If it is suitable, why do you suppose it's not used more often?

Reference Counting in C++ OO-Style

4 Answers