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
> 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...
-- Daniel Frey aixigo AG - financial training, research and technology Schloß-Rahe-Straße 15, 52072 Aachen, Germany fon: +49 (0)241 936737-42, fax: +49 (0)241 936737-99 eMail: daniel.frey_at_[hidden], web: http://www.aixigo.de
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk