on Fri Jun 01 2007, "Michael Marcin" <mmarcin-AT-method-solutions.com> wrote:
Daniel Frey wrote:
For the name, noncopyable_base is too much typing for my taste, YMMV. Ideally, it would have been noncopyable<T> from the very beginning, but it's too late for that, so I think adding a simple _ is the least intrusive change. Anyway, it's a valid idea to use _base, let's see what others think.
If it has to be changed anyways I'd recommend uncopyable<T>.
As Scott Meyers says in Effect C++
"That class is named noncopyable. It's a fine class, I just find the name a bit un-, er, nonnatural."
Yes, Scott complained about that to me in private before publishing his opinion, but I don't agree with him. "Noncopyable" is less ambiguous and no less correct. Can something be uncopied like it can be unfolded? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com