21 Aug
2014
21 Aug
'14
4:34 p.m.
Andrey Semashev wrote:
On Thursday 21 August 2014 19:08:54 Peter Dimov wrote:
Andrey Semashev wrote:
My point was that noncopyable should not impose any constraints on the user's class beyond the ones needed. The fact that it did before C++11 is not an advantage but the necessary evil people had to put up with.
What is your justification for this claim?
That's common sense, IMO.
It's not, sorry. "People have had to put up with noncopyable's shortcomings" is a factual claim, it requires that there were at least two persons (hence the plural) that have had specific problems.
There are benefits from C++11 in noncopyable, it's not a change for nothing.
Out of curiosity... do you use noncopyable?