From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-08 08:12:02
From: "Darin Adler" <darin_at_[hidden]>
> I still don't get this "poisoning" concept. If there is no operator ==
> declared, there is no operator ==. It's not automatically created by the
> compile in the way that operator =, the copy constructor, the default
> constructor, and the destructor are. Isn't that right?
Another example of why implicit conversions are evil. :-)
"operator const detail::undeletable* () const" will be used for the
FWIW, I tend to agree with Darin that the if(f), f = nil, f == nil
constructs, while useful, are not strictly necessary (considering the
problems they introduce) - the explicit empty(), clear() methods are fine.
-- Peter Dimov Multi Media Ltd.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk