Re: [boost] Re: noncopyable as a virtual base class?

From: Daniel Frey (daniel.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-18 11:24:42

Howard Hinnant wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, September 18, 2001, at 11:45  AM, jeremy_at_[hidden] wrote:
> 
> > Well I was thinking that sometime in the future I might change B so
> > that it no longer inherits A. I didn't think I should have to
> > remember that B got its noncopyable-ness from A.
> >
> > For now under MSVC I am using a noncopyable2 which does indeed simply
> > inherit noncopyable.
> 
> At the risk of boost::blasphemy, the low-tech alternative is beginning
> to sound pretty good to me (for your situation):
> 
> class MyClass  // noncopyable
> {
> public:
> private:
>         MyClass(const MyClass&);             // Not defined
>         MyClass& operator=(const MyClass&);  // Not defined
> };

Which is why I don't think noncopyable is known to most users because of
its sophisticated technique and hiding "complexity" but for
documentation purposes. Although I wonder what "overhead" will be
introduced by 'virtual noncopyable' by a reasonable clever compiler...

Regards, Daniel

--
Daniel Frey
aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology
Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany
fon: [phone], fax: [phone]
eMail: daniel.frey_at_[hidden], web: http://www.aixigo.de