14 Jun
2009
14 Jun
'09
7:29 a.m.
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. IMO, boost::noncopyable should not be the tag used with class_, but realistically it doesn't matter too much unless noncopyable is changed in the way described. -- -Matt Calabrese