Boost logo

Boost Users :

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-21 13:00:00

David Abrahams wrote:
> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> Victor A. Wagner Jr. wrote:
>>> why would you want such a thing?
>> Typically, in order to let generic code that needs a default
>> constructor to work unmodified on date/time values.
> Is there much generic code out there that works only on default
> constructible objects whose other concept requirements are satisfied
> by dates?

I can only give one example: serialization.

The real question is: do the benefits (none from my POV) gained by _not_
supplying a default constructor outweigh the disadvantages?

Boost-users list run by williamkempf at, kalb at, bjorn.karlsson at, gregod at, wekempf at