Re: [eigen] private copy ctors

[mmoll <Markus.Moll@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi

Zitat von Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

> There were actually occasions when that error was issued without
> const
> members - I don't recall exactly which classes/structs it were - and
> that is
> why I initially chose the current approach. 

Too bad. Would be really interesting to know. They also didn't derive
from classes with const members? No reference members either? I tend to
believe that VC.NET is not buggy in this area.

> > Wow, you used the words "nicer" and "macros" in the same sentence
> :-D
> >
> 
> Yes, that starts to happen when you want to write portable code...
> "nicer" =
> "less intrusive".

I know, I know. That remark wasn't completely serious. :)

> It would probably not complain but why would this be the cleanest
> solution? Boost's noncopyable does exactly the same as I did - 
> private, unimplemented assignment (plus and copy ctor). You just move 
> the linker errors to the base class.

Yes. The biggest advantage is that it documents what you're doing.

class X : nonassignable
{
 ...
};

is much easier to understand than

class X
{
   X& operator= (const X&);
   ...
};

(you wouldn't even know whether or not it's defined!)

Markus