From: Dave Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-06-05 17:16:35
I had a thought today that the default constructor for noncopyable ought to
be protected, to emphasize that it was only useful as a base class.
Then I thought that maybe noncopyable& would also make sense as a template
selector parameter, like a trait value.
Then I thought that template selectors probably ought to be able to be
passed by value, so noncopyable isn't a good candidate for use as a template
selector.
So I'm leaning towards a protected default constructor.
Opinions?
-Dave
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/boost
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications