From: Kloss, Burkhard (Burkhard.Kloss_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-04 08:51:27
From: Peter Dimov [mailto:pdimov_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
The second form is in the code - that means that the code and the
documentation never get out of sync, and that the compiler can check it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk