From: Kloss, Burkhard (Burkhard.Kloss_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-04 08:51:27
From: Peter Dimov [mailto:pdimov_at_[hidden]]
>> It seems to me that part of the point of boost::noncopyable is that using
>> it should eliminate the need to document noncopyable semantics.
>I really don't know how to interpret this sentence. Of course it doesn't
>eliminate the need to document the fact that a class is noncopyable. It
>simply replaces one form of documentation:
>Class X is not copyable and not assignable.
>with another:
>class X: private boost::noncopyable
>I'd be interested to hear your reasons for preferring the second form of
>documentation.
The second form is in the code - that means that the code and the
documentation never get out of sync, and that the compiler can check it.