From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-29 16:24:19
On Tuesday 29 October 2002 04:10 pm, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote:
> Why are requirements about the address operator (&) included in the
> CopyConstructible concept at
> http://www.boost.org/libs/utility/CopyConstructible.html? This strikes me
> as an error of taxonomy, as there is no essential reason why the two
> issues belong together. There are many algorithms that require one to be
> able to copy values, but don't care about taking addresses, and we have
> boost::addressof() anyway.
The requirements in utility/CopyConstructible.html are the same as those in
the C++ standard. FWIW, I agree with you that the address-of operator should
not be included, and I recently (last week) filed a defect report against it.
Only time will tell, but I'd be in favor of removing this (IMHO, unnecessary)
requirement from Boost's version of the concept.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk