Boost logo

Boost :

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

on Fri Jun 01 2007, "Michael Marcin" <> 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

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at