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
-- 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