Re: [boost] noncopyable EBO problem?

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-03 23:45:34

on Fri Jun 01 2007, "Michael Marcin" <mmarcin-AT-method-solutions.com> wrote:

> Daniel Frey wrote:
>>
>> For the name, noncopyable_base is too much typing for my taste, YMMV.
>> Ideally, it would have been noncopyable<T> from the very beginning,
>> but
>> it's too late for that, so I think adding a simple _ is the least
>> intrusive change. Anyway, it's a valid idea to use _base, let's see
>> what others think.
>>
>
> If it has to be changed anyways I'd recommend uncopyable<T>.
>
> As Scott Meyers says in Effect C++
>
> "That class is named noncopyable. It's a fine class, I just find the name a 
> bit un-, er, nonnatural."

Yes, Scott complained about that to me in private before publishing
his opinion, but I don't agree with him.  "Noncopyable" is less
ambiguous and no less correct.  Can something be uncopied like it can
be unfolded?

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com