Re: [Boost-users] Why is boost::thread::mutex noncopyable?

On 01/01/06, Phil Endecott wrote:

I disagree with the first comment: "The only logical form of copy would be to use some sort of shallow copy semantics in which multiple mutex objects could refer to the same mutex state." What's wrong with the copy of a mutex being a new independent mutex? (There's a problem if you copy a locked mutex, but I don't propose to do that.)

I think that would be more confusing, personally, since it wouldn't be making a copy. With non-copyable you get a compiler error if you try to copy it; with a do-nothing copy things would compile but not copy any sort of state or behaviour, which a copy would intuitively be expected to do. - Scott