Boost C++ Libraries: Ticket #105: Why noncopyable destructor isn't virtual

nobody — Tue, 25 May 2004 02:56:17 GMT

Logged In: NO
Does anybody want to have pointers of noncopyable?

rzymek — Thu, 12 May 2005 19:39:27 GMT

Logged In: YES
user_id=419557
This would be a problem if you used it like this:
class A : private boost::noncopyable  {
/* ... */
};
noncopyable* a = new A;
delete a;
But noncopyable isn't supposed to be used this way.

rzymek — Thu, 12 May 2005 19:39:38 GMT

Logged In: YES
user_id=419557
This would be a problem if you used it like this:
class A : private boost::noncopyable  {
/* ... */
};
noncopyable* a = new A;
delete a;
But noncopyable isn't supposed to be used this way.

nobody — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 12:42:27 GMT

Logged In: NO
one should not use the pointer to a noncopyable object
A tyical code should look something like this:
class A: private noncopyable
{
}
A* pa = new A();
delete pa;
And, the private will make sure that no one can access A
through noncopyable interface.
So you cannot say:
noncopyable* pnc = new A();
it will create an error message like:
a.cxx: In function `int main()':
a.cxx:11: error: `noncopyable' is an inaccessible base of `A'
regards,
Sambit

status, reporter, version, resolution, description changed; severity set

Dave Abrahams — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 01:23:11 GMT

status assigned → closed
severity → Cosmetic
reporter changed from wusan to wusan@…
version None → release 1.34.0
resolution None → wontfix
description modified (diff)

The answer why not is that it would add needless overhead.