From: Daniel Frey (d.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-04 13:21:36
David Abrahams wrote:
> on Fri Jun 01 2007, "Michael Marcin" <mmarcin-AT-method-solutions.com> wrote:
>> 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?
I agree with your reasons for chosing "noncopyable" and I'd like to
point out to Michael that it's existing practice for some years now, so
yet another argument to stick with it.
Dave, any wisdom on the technical part? And as I believe you are the
maintainer (and given we can agree that the change should be made and
that a good naming scheme is chosen): Would you like to do the change
yourself, would you like to receive a patch or shall I go ahead and
commit changes to CVS?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk