Date: 2001-03-09 09:50:16
--- In boost_at_y..., Thomas "H." Ptacek <tqbf_at_s...> wrote:
> Am I missing an obvious reason why Boost doesn't include a
> "class heap_only" (that protects the destructor and provides
> a virtual kill() method) and "class stack_only" (that protects the
> class-specific operators new and delete)? Or is it just
> lack of demand?
Personally, I wouldn't want to see such classes. Why? Because they
don't work. Scott Meyers goes into great detail about these concepts
in EC++ so I won't restate them here, but the end result is that
these "techniques" have very limited usefullness.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk