From: Manuel Fiorelli (manuel.fiorelli_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-31 18:06:35
I agree with you that boost::noninheritable is probably stronger than
boost::nonderivable (even if the proposed exploit is a very subtle one).
I read boost::noninheritable documentation and I found a typo: indeed, in
the section "When to use", you refer to your library as
"boost::noncopyable".
Also, I suggest you to:
1) list every known supported compiler, and especially you should compare
it with boost officially supported platforms
2) add to the documentation a section where you explain how to solve the
problem about "value semantics" (copy constructor and assignment operator)
Best regards,
Manuel Fiorelli
www.fioreltech.net