on Mon Jun 04 2007, Daniel Frey <d.frey-AT-gmx.de> wrote:
David Abrahams wrote:
on Fri Jun 01 2007, "Michael Marcin" <mmarcin-AT-method-solutions.com> wrote:
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?
I agree with your reasons for chosing "noncopyable" and I'd like to point out to Michael that it's existing practice for some years now, so yet another argument to stick with it.
Dave, any wisdom on the technical part? And as I believe you are the maintainer (and given we can agree that the change should be made
I don't think I want to see a backwards-incompatible change. An extension might be OK.
and that a good naming scheme is chosen): Would you like to do the change yourself, would you like to receive a patch or shall I go ahead and commit changes to CVS?
If you have a patch with docs and tests, I'd like to review it before you commit. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com