On 08/30/2013 11:39 AM, Fridrich Strba wrote:
On 30/08/13 11:11, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
...because boost::noncopyable has become the de-facto standard idiom for
this, at least for pre-C++11 code that depends on Boost anyway.
[citation missing]
Sure, nice to have standard idiom that causes us to have to work-around
implementation bugs. Where two private declarations could be enough. But
then maybe I am too low-level for the modern C++ developers. I even know
how to manage my memory myself :)
The working hypothesis is that if a configuration fails to process uses
of boost::noncopyable, it is sufficiently broken to fail on more
elaborate uses of Boost further down the LO build, too,
Stephan
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
