Re: [boost] [core/noncopyable][test/boost::unit_test::singleton]massivetestfailures

Subject: Re: [boost] [core/noncopyable][test/boost::unit_test::singleton]massivetestfailures
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-08-21 12:08:54

Andrey Semashev wrote:
> My point was that noncopyable should not impose any constraints on the 
> user's class beyond the ones needed. The fact that it did before C++11 is 
> not an advantage but the necessary evil people had to put up with.

What is your justification for this claim?

> Sure, but following that logic noncopyable shouldn't have existed in the 
> first place.

No, this does not follow (even though I agree that it shouldn't have existed 
:-). The fact that noncopyable only works for 99.4% of the uses does not 
imply that it should not be provided.

> > Stated differently, were the changes driven by any kind of user demand?
>
> Well, there was this ticket:
>
> https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/6578

Yes, I know. You'll note that it cites no reasons for the change and 
provides no examples of noncopyable's supposed inadequacy. It's just "C++11 
is shiny, let's make use of it!"