Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="James Kanze, post: 2993186"] I know what you mean. From a language point of view, it may always be a constructor, but from a logical point of view, I, too, tend to think of creating a new object as somehow different from creating a copy. I even have a few special cases where I keep count of the copies, and the "real" destruction---something like freeing the resource in RAII---only takes place when the last copy is destructed. (Boost::shared_ptr is a special case of this particular idiom.) More likely, either everything from column B, or nothing:-). Quite. If you have a user defined copy-constructor (which inhibits the automatic generation of a default constructor), you'd better have at least one other user defined constructor as well. [/QUOTE]