19 Dec
2004
19 Dec
'04
3:19 p.m.
Maxim Yegorushkin wrote:
Peter Dimov wrote:
Maxim Yegorushkin wrote:
Does it really make any sense making only implementation noncopyable, rather than interface?
This would prevent you from making a copyable implementation of the interface.
No. Deriving from boost::noncopyable only suppress compiler generated copy ctor and assignment. You still can define them and make your boost::noncopyable successor copyable.
Yes, you are right. It doesn't prevent copyable implementations. Not an idiom that I would use, personally, but it is legitimate.