[boost] Re: noncopyable

From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-06-07 12:36:41

At 06:16 PM 6/5/99 -0400, Dave Abrahams wrote:

>I had a thought today that the default constructor for noncopyable
ought to
>be protected, to emphasize that it was only useful as a base class.
>
>Then I thought that maybe noncopyable& would also make sense as a
template
>selector parameter, like a trait value.
>
>Then I thought that template selectors probably ought to be able to
be
>passed by value, so noncopyable isn't a good candidate for use as a
template
>selector.
>
>So I'm leaning towards a protected default constructor.
>
>Opinions?

I will change it to protected unless someone comes up with a reason
not to.

--Beman

------------------------------------------------------------------------

eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/boost
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications