Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="JohnQ, post: 2600308"]
I like, non-copyable, non-assignable and, most often, 
non-default-constructable also, as a starting point for class design:

class SomeClass
 {
      SomeClass(); // disallow default construction
      SomeClass(const SomeClass&);  // disallow copy construction
      SomeClass& operator=(const SomeClass&); // disallow assignment

public:
    // other allowed constructors, destructor, operators, functions
 } ;

I'm swaying toward the thought that compiler-generated functions are a pain 
and go against logical language design: when not specified, a default 
constructor, a destructor, a copy constructor and an assignment operator are 
generated by the compiler. But to prevent them, you have to do typing as 
shown above, leaving out the implementation. Wouldn't it make more sense to 
say, "If it's not declared in the class declaration, then the class object 
instances will not have the behavior in the compiled code"? How 
counter-intuitive can one be?! To me, "what you see is what you get" seems 
better. Is there a good reason why it is like it is or could it have just as 
easily gone the other way? Which way would you prefer?

John
[/QUOTE]

Verification