From: John Maddock (jm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-07 05:56:24
> Actually, the problem I have is that GCC extended the copying ban to
> std::basic_streambuf<>, even though DR 50 only mentions std::ios_base.
> I know that copying stream bases or stream buffers are probably bad
> ideas, but I didn't feel comfortable leaving copy semantics out of my
> subclass's description, especially since I knew the default copy
> semantics would be wrong. Should I just take the copying code out and
> hope that no one will try copying? (Remember that copying can be
> attempted, with unknown results, on compilers without DR 50.) Should I
> explicitly ban copying in my subclass?
Personally I would say "yes", is there a good reason for copying stream
buffers (I can't think of one)? Looks like a grey area of the standard to
me, I don't think that basic_streambuf was supposed to be copyable, but you
never know, I'll check on the std-lib reflector.
> Even if I add explicit non-copying, that is only necessary only if
> stream-buffer copying wasn't already banned in std::basic_streambuf. I
> would still need a macro to know when to apply my own copying ban.
> (Since GCC added the ban on stream-buffer copying on its own, it's not
> covered by DR 50. So I can't expect every compiler to eventually do
> that change too.)
If you add a private copy constructor then that will always work, no matter
what the base class does.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk