Re: [boost] noncopyable EBO problem?

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-04 13:36:00

on Mon Jun 04 2007, Daniel Frey <d.frey-AT-gmx.de> wrote:

> 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 

I don't think I want to see a backwards-incompatible change.  An
extension might be OK.

> 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?

If you have a patch with docs and tests, I'd like to review it before
you commit.

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