From: loufoque (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-08-02 17:23:39
Daryle Walker wrote :
> Why would being copy-constructible forbid POD-ness? Obviously, adding a
> copy constructor to a class/struct/union would disqualify it from being POD.
> But that's not the only way to define copying. The automatic copy
> constructor does _not_ cancel POD qualification, since is a dumb bitwise
> copy for PODs, and should still count as copy-constructible as far as STL is
> concerned. (If an explicit copy construction operation actually is
> required, then the concept is broken. It not like you can improperly use a
> constructor by getting its member-function address.)
As I clearly said, I was talking about the endian types.
And they require a custom constructor.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk