28 Sep
2006
28 Sep
'06
9:06 p.m.
"Eric Niebler" <eric@boost-consulting.com> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
What am I missing?
Terminology issue? I mean, if there is a type X, and we want "x = y" to fail to compile for objects x,y of type X
Is that something we want in this case?
what is the best way to accomplish that?
1) X is actually a typedef for a const-qualified type detail::X_impl
Technically not enough, because it could have a const-qualified copy-assignment operator.
2) X has a private copy-assign operator
I then pointed out that neither of these are appropriate for keyword<>.
I see. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com