23 Dec
2008
23 Dec
'08
11:04 p.m.
On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 02:04, Vladimir Batov <batov@people.net.au> wrote:
... My argument was that some things have some features and some others don't. That is there (or not there) for a purpose. If we, say, banish foo::foo() then is for a reason. Consequently, the functionality dependent on that foo::foo() will not be available for that same reason -- 'foo' should not be created with the def. cnstr. ...
Interestingly, I think that's the contrapositive of mine: If removing the default constructor prevents something from being useful in reasonable combinations with other classes, then removing the default constructor is a bad idea.