From: David Maisonave (dmaisonave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-04 12:33:48
"Thorsten Ottosen" <tottosen_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Hi David,
> Nice to know your name :-)
I rarely use my real name on the net, since most developers on the net
know me as Axter.
You'll ususally find me in the Experts-Exchange C++ topic are
CodeGuru/CodeProject/MSDN VC++ forums.
Although I participate in the C++ newsgroup, I prefer Web topic forums,
since it keeps out those who seem to loose all their manners as soon as
they connect to the internet. :-)
> >>Note that DerivedDerivedS1/S2 does not implement do_clone().
> > Yes. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make.
> > Both the boost pointer containers and the cow_ptr/copy_ptr method
> > can result in splicing via improper usage.
> right, if you don't make a class clonable in a proper manner, it wont
> cloned in a proper manner. <g>
> > Both methods can produce splicing via derive-derive type, and both
> > methods can produce splicing via derive type of a non-abstract type.
> > Furthermore, making the class non-copyable does not prevent the
> > splicing in a pointer idiom.
> I'm not sure this is called splicing.
> I'd call it a bug.
Yes, I call it a bug too, but I also call any code that produces
unwanted splicing a bug.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk