20 Aug
2005
20 Aug
'05
6:24 p.m.
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:52:59 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote
Markus Sch?pflin wrote:
Presumably it doesn't matter much, since the compiler will generate a copy ctor with the right semantics, so the typo just introduces a constructor that will only cause an error if it's instantiated, which is fairly unlikely.
In fact, why is the copy ctor explicitly defined at all?
Clearly a bug -- I've removed the function in the CVS version to help compilers that seem to care. Thx, Jeff