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,
>> 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
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://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