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 12:34:27

Andrey Semashev wrote:
> On Thursday 21 August 2014 19:08:54 Peter Dimov wrote:
> > 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?
>
> That's common sense, IMO.

It's not, sorry. "People have had to put up with noncopyable's shortcomings" 
is a factual claim, it requires that there were at least two persons (hence 
the plural) that have had specific problems.

> There are benefits from C++11 in noncopyable, it's not a change for 
> nothing.

Out of curiosity... do you use noncopyable?