Re: worth the hassle?

[Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov>]

"Frank J. Lhota" <NOSPAM.lhota.adarose@verizon.net> writes:

> "Stephen Leake" <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote in message
> news:uheirlk4z.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov...
> > My own opinion is that supporting limited types is a requirement for
> > any general-purpose container.
> >
> > This is probably one reason why Ada will never be as popular as C++;
> > in C++, you don't have to make this kind of decision :).
> 
> Why isn't this a C++ issue as well? Certainly it is possible to declare the
> C++ equivalent of a limited type, i.e. a type for which assignment is not
> available.

True, you can hide the copy operator by declaring it private. But the
template declaration does not declare whether you should/can do that,
so the decision is not obvious. You'll get link errors if your client
class does not have the required methods.

There _is_ a smiley there!

-- 
-- Stephe