This is the mail archive of the cygwin-apps@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 14:27 +0100, Max Bowsher wrote: > Robert Collins wrote: > > > > which is public, and should be usable. > > See: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html#cxx_rvalbind > > I agree with you, but the C++ Standard and GCC 3.4 disagree with both of us. Eek. > > gcc 3.x have all honoured the privateness of Foo aFoo(Foo());, and > > whatever warning you are getting is probably correct. > > > > As to the privateness of the copy constructor, I didn't comment it, but > > neither did I implement it: thats an idiom I use, to cause compiler > > errors when someone tries to do something that they aren't meant to. > > Why is this something that isn't meant to happen? Because I hadn't written an explicit copy-constructor. > > You could certainly make it public and implement it if you choose. > > Do I need to implement it? AFAICS the implicit copy-constructor should be > ok - am I wrong? the implicit one will work, but an explicit one would be good practice here IMO. Thats because we have a pointer (_operator) that isn't actually foreign storage, and explicitly copying the pointer, not the contents may make the intent clear. > > However, showing the error you get might be more useful... Thanks. Rob
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |