From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-29 16:24:19
On Tuesday 29 October 2002 04:10 pm, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote:
> Why are requirements about the address operator (&) included in the
> CopyConstructible concept at
> http://www.boost.org/libs/utility/CopyConstructible.html? This strikes me
> as an error of taxonomy, as there is no essential reason why the two
> issues belong together. There are many algorithms that require one to be
> able to copy values, but don't care about taking addresses, and we have
> boost::addressof() anyway.
The requirements in utility/CopyConstructible.html are the same as those in
the C++ standard. FWIW, I agree with you that the address-of operator should
not be included, and I recently (last week) filed a defect report against it.
Only time will tell, but I'd be in favor of removing this (IMHO, unnecessary)
requirement from Boost's version of the concept.
Doug