Re: [boost] Suggestion to add class nonistantiable to utility.hpp

From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-05-25 08:03:46

In my neck of the woods we call that class "namespace" ;)
Seriously, why not use a namespace?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Nordlund" <peter.nordlund_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 5:26 AM
Subject: [boost] Suggestion to add class nonistantiable to utility.hpp

> Hi all,
> 
> In the spirit of noncopyable I suggest that the class
> 
> class noninstantiable {
>     private:
>       noninstantiable(){}
> }; // noninstantiable
> 
> is added to utility.hpp.
> 
> Inherit from this class if your class should not be possible to
> instantiate.
> E.g when your class only contain static functions.
> 
> If someone has a better name to suggest you are wellcome!
>