Re: [boost] Re: Additions to utility.hpp?

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
always
> > 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
> totally.

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?

-Dave