From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-20 13:24:32
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:52:59 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote
> Markus Sch?pflin wrote:
>
> Presumably it doesn't matter much, since the compiler will generate a
> copy ctor with the right semantics, so the typo just introduces a
> constructor that will only cause an error if it's instantiated,
> which is fairly unlikely.
>
> In fact, why is the copy ctor explicitly defined at all?
Clearly a bug -- I've removed the function in the CVS version to help
compilers that seem to care.
Thx,
Jeff