From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-19 10:19:00
Maxim Yegorushkin wrote:
> 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
> 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.
Yes, you are right. It doesn't prevent copyable implementations. Not an
idiom that I would use, personally, but it is legitimate.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk