This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
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: <email@example.com> <1093914414.10698.56.camel@localhost> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1093941341.21210.48.camel@localhost> <email@example.com> <1093960377.22450.22.camel@localhost> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <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
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.