From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-04 03:36:26
Daniel Spangenberg <dsp_at_[hidden]> writes:
> "Hurd, Matthew" schrieb:
>> Hi Daniel,
>> I think the non-copyable semantics is appropriate as the mutex may be a
>> truly non-copyable OS related thing.
>> There is no reason why you can't have a reference or pointer to a mutex and
>> that can be swapped amongst your objects.
>> Does that solve your issue?
> Hello Matthew,
> no, it doesn't. The problem is not, that I could not find any workaround for that
> and I am also not preaching to introduce a copy semantic for those objects.
> Please be aware that Swapable does not necessary imply Copyable.
You'd better supply a careful definition of Swappable before I
believe that. Once Howard Hinnant's LWG issue 301 changes are
accepted, the picture may look a bit different.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk