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. I think I just did not get you right.
If you deal with interfaces only it won't save you from errors like this:
std::auto_ptr<Interface> create() { return std::auto_ptr<Interface>(new Implementation); }
void foo() { std::auto_ptr<Interface> a(create()), b(create());
Assuming you mean boost::shared_ptr here. auto_ptr doesn't work.
No, I meant std::auto_ptr<>. I overlooked the protected destructor :). -- Maxim Yegorushkin