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]

Re: [setup] Why does PackageSpecificationhaveaprivatecopy-constructor? (Robert?)

From: "Max Bowsher" <maxb at ukf dot net>
To: "Robert Collins" <rbcollins at cygwin dot com>
Cc: "Cygwin Apps" <cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com>
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 08:12:16 +0100
Subject: Re: [setup] Why does PackageSpecificationhaveaprivatecopy-constructor? (Robert?)
References: <039401c48eb7$bcb75f70$78d96f83@robinson.cam.ac.uk> <1093914414.10698.56.camel@localhost> <001601c48f2f$cc7d38d0$78d96f83@robinson.cam.ac.uk> <1093941341.21210.48.camel@localhost> <022e01c48f5e$523f3b70$78d96f83@robinson.cam.ac.uk> <1093960377.22450.22.camel@localhost> <008201c48fab$dc3a89e0$78d96f83@robinson.cam.ac.uk> <1093998577.22450.25.camel@localhost>

Robert Collins wrote:

On Tue, 2004-08-31 at 23:42 +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:

Unless we add explicit copy-constructors to every single class, I'd rather just leave it out and let the compiler handle things implicitly? It seems cleaner to me.
I think you'll find every class that has a destructor also has an
explicit copy constructor & assignment operator. That class certainly
has an explicit assignment operator... being explicit on the copy
constructor is consistent.
Have you heard of the 'rule of 3' ?

No. Apparently I need to do some reading.

Max.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [setup] Why doesPackageSpecificationhaveaprivatecopy-constructor? (Robert?)
  - From: Robert Collins

References:
- Re: [setup] Why does PackageSpecificationhaveaprivatecopy-constructor? (Robert?)
  - From: Robert Collins

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]