On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 16:24:19 -0500, Douglas Gregor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tuesday 29 October 2002 04:10 pm, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote: >> Why are requirements about the address operator (&) included in the >> CopyConstructible concept at >> http://www.boost.org/libs/utility/CopyConstructible.html? This strikes me >> as an error of taxonomy, as there is no essential reason why the two >> issues belong together. There are many algorithms that require one to be >> able to copy values, but don't care about taking addresses, and we have >> boost::addressof() anyway. > >The requirements in utility/CopyConstructible.html are the same as those in >the C++ standard. FWIW, I agree with you that the address-of operator should >not be included, and I recently (last week) filed a defect report against it. >Only time will tell I don't see the reason for the inclusion of operator & either. However if really that reason doesn't exist it is *veeeery* strange that this wasn't noticed during discussions about library issue 69: http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-defects.html#69 The rationale section for that defect says: There is no need to explicitly consider a user-defined operator& because elements must be copyconstructible (23.1 [lib.container.requirements] para 3) and copyconstructible (20.1.3 [lib.copyconstructible]) specifies requirements for operator&. How is it possible for it to pass unnoticed? Genny. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost