Re: [boost] Documenting non-copyable-ness

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.

with another:

class X: private boost::noncopyable

I'd be interested to hear your reasons for preferring the second form of
documentation.

We already have one precedent where

void f() throw();

actually doesn't mean throw().

--
Peter Dimov
Multi Media Ltd.