On 15/10/14 09:47, lilypond-lfe9kunurqglq9buahr...@public.gmane.org wrote: > Updates: > Status: Fixed > Labels: -Type-Enhancement -Patch-push Type-Maintainability > Fixed_2_19_16 > > Comment #13 on issue 4156 by dak-mXXj517/z...@public.gmane.org: Patch: > Define Smob<> constructors. > https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=4156 > > Pushed to staging as > commit 7f309e69558db5225b92ae003c0818c68988013d > Author: David Kastrup <dak-mXXj517/z...@public.gmane.org> > Date: Wed Oct 8 16:46:52 2014 +0200 > > Issue 4156: Define Smob<> constructors > > The purpose of this patch is to stop the previous implicit copying of > Smob<> data members in derived copy constructors. > > To that purpose, Smob<> has received a private copy constructor (which > gcc unfortunately only considers worth a warning rather than an error > when implicitly used in a default copy constructor) and an inline > default constructor. > > Several classes contained virtual copy constructors without being > actually copyable have had their copy constructor removed. > > Several copy constructors just containing a failing assertion were > instead removed and left (privately) declared but not defined. This > standard C++ practice leads to link time rather than run time errors in > case an instance of such a class is copied. > > <b>Other smob-defining base classes (Simple_smob and Smob{1,2,3}) do not > actually have non-static data members that could be initialized.<b/> > > Prohibiting the copying of Simple_smob as a base class seems rather > pointless as all of the data members of a derived class are under the > control of the derived class. However, Smob{1,2,3} "misuse" this > pointer to contain an SCM value. Creating a copy would change the > associated address, a very undesirable operation. So Smob{1,2,3} have > its constructors private and/or disabled. > >
_______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
