Boost logo

Boost :

From: Maxim Yegorushkin (e-maxim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-19 09:07:32

Peter Dimov wrote:

> Maxim Yegorushkin wrote:
>> Does it really make any sense making only implementation noncopyable,
>> rather than interface?
> This would prevent you from making a copyable implementation of the
> interface.

No. Deriving from boost::noncopyable only suppress compiler generated copy
ctor and assignment. You still can define them and make your
boost::noncopyable successor copyable.

I think I just did not get you right.

>> If you deal with interfaces only it won't save
>> you from errors like this:
>> std::auto_ptr<Interface> create() { return
>> std::auto_ptr<Interface>(new Implementation); }
>> void foo()
>> {
>> std::auto_ptr<Interface> a(create()), b(create());
> Assuming you mean boost::shared_ptr here. auto_ptr doesn't work.

No, I meant std::auto_ptr<>. I overlooked the protected destructor :).

Maxim Yegorushkin

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