19 Jun
2009
19 Jun
'09
1:50 a.m.
on Sun Jun 14 2009, Matt Calabrese <rivorus-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Daniel Frey <d.frey@gmx.de> wrote:
On 13.06.2009, at 20:27, Matt Calabrese wrote: I haven't looked at it, but as you describe it, it sound as if they should just create their own tag type anyway as they are simply misusing noncopyable.
I think I agree in calling it a misuse, but I am always afraid to make such a statement, especially given that I'm pretty sure Dave created both noncopyable and the class_ interface.
I did.
IMO, boost::noncopyable should not be the tag used with class_,
I'm not really sure there's a better name for what it does. Why should a different tag be used? -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com