From: Daniel Frey (d.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-01 13:11:34
Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
> I added a comment inline which I hope explains the rationale for this class,
> because it is far from obvious IMHO. If the reasons there are wrong, please
> correct me. Other than that, I'd suggest naming it noncopyable_base<T>.
This should IMHO go to the documentation, maybe a small comment in the
code could be added as well. My implementation wasn't meant to go the
CVS, it was just a complete example of what the technical part of the
change should be. Of course the real change would also include
documentation changes and maybe even a testcase...
For the name, noncopyable_base is too much typing for my taste, YMMV.
Ideally, it would have been noncopyable<T> from the very beginning, but
it's too late for that, so I think adding a simple _ is the least
intrusive change. Anyway, it's a valid idea to use _base, let's see what
others think.
>> namespace noncopyable_impl // prevent unintended ADL
>> {
>> template< typename > class noncopyable_
>> {
>> // omitted ...
>> };
>> typedef noncopyable_<void> noncopyable;
>> }
>>
>> using namespace noncopyable_impl;
>
> Why this? I guess it is intended to prevent ADL, right? Can you point me to a
> rationale for this?
For example: <http://listarchives.boost.org/boost-users/2006/06/20110.php>
Regards, Daniel