From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-08 10:10:26
On Friday 08 June 2001 09:12 am, you wrote:
> 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.
Which problems do they introduce? Unless there are serious problems with the
nil/null type (such that it won't be adopted), I'm not sure I see any further
problems with the operators.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk