29 May
2010
29 May
'10
8:41 p.m.
On 5/28/2010 11:45 PM, Ion Gaztañaga wrote:
On 29/05/2010 1:29, Thomas Klimpel wrote:
The idea by Ilya Sokolov to modify the signature of the private copy constructor and assignment operator in boost::noncopyable to a non-const reference actually seems to make perfect sense.
It's a good option, but I'm still reluctant. Adding a base class in boost namespace has also implications with ADL and it's unnecessary for compilers with deleted definitions (= delete). I need a bit more time to see pros/cons.
Best,
Ion
I, too, am (currently) against adding such a base class, for the above reasons and for the MSVC EBO reason Ion gave earlier. - Jeff