> Actually, the problem I have is that GCC extended the copying ban to > std::basic_streambuf<>, even though DR 50 only mentions std::ios_base. > I know that copying stream bases or stream buffers are probably bad > ideas, but I didn't feel comfortable leaving copy semantics out of my > subclass's description, especially since I knew the default copy > semantics would be wrong. Should I just take the copying code out and > hope that no one will try copying? (Remember that copying can be > attempted, with unknown results, on compilers without DR 50.) Should I > explicitly ban copying in my subclass?
Personally I would say "yes", is there a good reason for copying stream buffers (I can't think of one)? Looks like a grey area of the standard to me, I don't think that basic_streambuf was supposed to be copyable, but you never know, I'll check on the std-lib reflector. > Even if I add explicit non-copying, that is only necessary only if > stream-buffer copying wasn't already banned in std::basic_streambuf. I > would still need a macro to know when to apply my own copying ban. > (Since GCC added the ban on stream-buffer copying on its own, it's not > covered by DR 50. So I can't expect every compiler to eventually do > that change too.) If you add a private copy constructor then that will always work, no matter what the base class does. John. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
