|
|
Boost : |
From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-07-14 07:19:51
On Monday, July 14, 2003, at 05:18 AM, John wrote:
>> class nat {nat();};
>
> How about not_a_type?
>
> It's a little more to type, but looks much better (IMHO).
>
> And shouldn't it be :
>
> struct not_a_type {};
As Peter pointed out, such a class can have several uses. In some of
the contexts I've used it, I wanted to make sure that client code could
not construct an instance. Perhaps such a constraint would not be
appropriate in all use cases.
-Howard
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk