From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-07-08 20:25:05
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daryle Walker" <darylew_at_[hidden]>
> on 7/8/00 1:04 AM, David Abrahams at abrahams_at_[hidden] wrote:
> > It's easy to write a class whose default construction or copy-assignment
> > semantics don't work right, but operator, and operator& pretty much
> > do the right thing. Do you have a motivating example for these?
> No. But remember, I'm not changing their semantics; I'm blocking them
My point is that we might reasonably choose to block copy semantics with
noncopyable when the default semantics are inappropriate. What reason might
there be to block the comma and/or address semantics?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk