|
|
Boost : |
From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-11 16:00:07
David Abrahams wrote:
> And how can I understand what you're saying well enough to convince
> implementors that I'm right?
I think that the first thing to do is to ask implementors why they require
the accessible copy constructor for f( X(1) ), while at the same time the
seemingly equivalent f( XC(X(1)) ) (as per the infamous second bullet)
compiles fine.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk