Ticket #6578: noncopyable_cpp11.git.2.diff

trunk/boost/noncopyable.hpp

@@ -9 +9 @@
 #ifndef BOOST_NONCOPYABLE_HPP_INCLUDED
 #define BOOST_NONCOPYABLE_HPP_INCLUDED
 
+#include <boost/config.hpp>
+
 namespace boost {
 
 //  Private copy constructor and copy assignment ensure classes derived from
@@ -21 +23 @@
   class noncopyable
   {
    protected:
+#ifndef BOOST_NO_DEFAULTED_FUNCTIONS
+      BOOST_CONSTEXPR noncopyable() = default;
+      ~noncopyable() = default;
+#else
       noncopyable() {}
       ~noncopyable() {}
+#endif
+#ifndef BOOST_NO_DELETED_FUNCTIONS
+      noncopyable( const noncopyable& ) = delete;
+      const noncopyable& operator=( const noncopyable& ) = delete;
+#else
    private:  // emphasize the following members are private
       noncopyable( const noncopyable& );
       const noncopyable& operator=( const noncopyable& );
+#endif
   };
 }
 

trunk/libs/utility/utility.htm

@@ -84 +84 @@
                         will prevent the otherwise implicitly-generated functions (which don't have the 
                         proper semantics) from becoming a trap for other programmers.</p>
                 <p>The traditional way to deal with these is to declare a private copy constructor 
-                        and copy assignment, and then document why this is done.&nbsp; But deriving 
+                        and copy assignment, and then document why this is done.&nbsp; A new alternative 
+                        was introduced in C++2011, declaring a copy constructor and a copy assignment 
+                        operator, but marking both as <code>delete</code>d.&nbsp; Deriving 
                         from <b>noncopyable</b> is simpler and clearer, and doesn't require additional 
                         documentation.</p>
                 <p>The program <a href="noncopyable_test.cpp">noncopyable_test.cpp</a> can be used 
@@ -106 +108 @@
                         about the effect on compiler optimization of adding (even trivial inline) 
                         destructor declarations. He says &quot;Probably this concern is misplaced, 
                         because noncopyable will be used mostly for classes which own resources and 
-                        thus have non-trivial destruction semantics.&quot;</p>
+                        thus have non-trivial destruction semantics.&quot;&nbsp; With C++2011, using an 
+                        optimized and trivial constructor and similar destructor can be enforced by 
+                        declaring both and marking them <code>default</code>.</p>
                 <h2><a name="addressof">Function template addressof()</a></h2>
                 <p>Function <strong>addressof()</strong> returns the address of an object.</p>
                 <blockquote>
@@ -313 +317 @@
 </pre></blockquote>
                 <hr>
                 <p>Revised&nbsp; <!--webbot bot="Timestamp" S-Type="EDITED" S-Format="%d %B, %Y" startspan
--->04 September, 2008<!--webbot bot="Timestamp" endspan i-checksum="39369"
+-->18 February, 2012<!--webbot bot="Timestamp" endspan i-checksum="39369"
 -->
                 </p>
                 <p>&copy; Copyright Beman Dawes 1999-2003.</p>