Boost logo

Boost :

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
> 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. ;)

Dirk Gerrits

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at