From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-28 17:06:08
"Eric Niebler" <eric_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> What am I missing?
> Terminology issue? I mean, if there is a type X, and we want "x = y" to
> fail to compile for objects x,y of type X
Is that something we want in this case?
> what is the best way to accomplish that?
> 1) X is actually a typedef for a const-qualified type detail::X_impl
Technically not enough, because it could have a const-qualified
> 2) X has a private copy-assign operator
> I then pointed out that neither of these are appropriate for keyword<>.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk