From: Dirk Gerrits (dirk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-29 16:20:12
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.
Seems like you have a point.
Additionally, that page says:
u is an object of type const T
return type of &u is T*
which should be const T* AFAIK.
But that doesn't really matter if & gets kicked out of that page I guess. ;)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk