Nikolai Pretzell wrote:
[...]
Conclusion and suggestion
=========================
1)
The warnings don't give any additional information. Any attempt to copy
such a class results in a compiler error anyway.
The information is given when defining the class, not when using it, so
the warning can be of value when creating an API, for example (and unit
tests for that API might not trigger those copy ctors and assignment ops).
2)
The warnings annihilate the boost noncopyable-idiom
In how far do the warnings annihilate boost::noncopyable? The only issue
I see is that the workaround (declaring private, undefined functions)
and boost::noncopyable express the same thing, so using them both is
redundant.
3)
The warning tells the developer something that was intended anyway, so
he does not want to be told again.
In case it was not intended, see 1)
So, my suggestion: let's switch off the windows warnings
C4625, C4626, C4511, C4512.
Regards,
Nikolai
-Stephan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
