From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-04 08:46:48
From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
> It seems to me that part of the point of boost::noncopyable is that using
> it should eliminate the need to document noncopyable semantics.
I really don't know how to interpret this sentence. Of course it doesn't
eliminate the need to document the fact that a class is noncopyable. It
simply replaces one form of documentation:
Class X is not copyable and not assignable.
class X: private boost::noncopyable
I'd be interested to hear your reasons for preferring the second form of
We already have one precedent where
void f() throw();
actually doesn't mean throw().
-- 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