Subject: Re: [boost] [fusion][map] default construction semantics
From: Rutger ter Borg (rutger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-25 11:22:06
Thomas Klimpel wrote:
> This looks like a function declaration to me (a function with name "map"
> that takes no arguments and returns a map_type), but C++ might be
> intelligent enough to see that it is a default initialization.
Yes, my mistake.
>> // Compiler error -- tries to copy
>> map_type map;
> This looks like a default initialization to me. I have no idea, whether
> this default initialization should compile without error.
Well, the docs state that it would call the default constructor of all
elements, which I think it does not, otherwise there would not be a
boost::noncopyable block, or would there?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk