29 May
2010
29 May
'10
6:45 a.m.
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