On 01/15/2010 07:35 AM, john foo wrote:
Walter Bright Wrote:
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Exactly, it seems to me that the generalization in this case is
counterproductive.
It's similar to the motivation for the "= delete" capability proposed
for C++0x. Lawrence Crowl makes a good case for it:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2326.html#delete
Lawrence mentions several uses for it.
So you're copying yet another C++0x feature and renaming it to attract more
positive publicity..
How is this not a good thing?
