From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-04 08:50:49
I tend to agree with Peter. Furthermore, It seems to me that noncopyable is
/only/ useful as documentation in the source code. Our written documentation
shouldn't refer to it (except for the documentation of noncopyable itself).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Documenting non-copyable-ness
> From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
> > It seems to me that part of the point of boost::noncopyable is that
> > 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
> We already have one precedent where
> void f() throw();
> actually doesn't mean throw().
> Peter Dimov
> Multi Media Ltd.
> Info: http://www.boost.org Unsubscribe:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk