"Thorsten Ottosen" <tottosen@dezide.com> wrote in message news:<dpgs2b$535$2@sea.gmane.org>...
Hi David,
Nice to know your name :-)
I rarely use my real name on the net, since most developers on the net know me as Axter. You'll ususally find me in the Experts-Exchange C++ topic are (http://www.experts-exchange.com/Cplusplus/) or CodeGuru/CodeProject/MSDN VC++ forums. Although I participate in the C++ newsgroup, I prefer Web topic forums, since it keeps out those who seem to loose all their manners as soon as they connect to the internet. :-)
Note that DerivedDerivedS1/S2 does not implement do_clone().
Yes. That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Both the boost pointer containers and the cow_ptr/copy_ptr method can result in splicing via improper usage.
right, if you don't make a class clonable in a proper manner, it wont be cloned in a proper manner. <g>
Both methods can produce splicing via derive-derive type, and both methods can produce splicing via derive type of a non-abstract type.
Furthermore, making the class non-copyable does not prevent the splicing in a pointer idiom.
I'm not sure this is called splicing.
I'd call it a bug.
Yes, I call it a bug too, but I also call any code that produces unwanted splicing a bug.