One solution I've seen (I think boost does this as well) is to make a
utility class called noncopyable that you can privately inherit from:
class noncopyable {
public:
noncopyable(const noncopyable &) = delete;
noncopyable &operator=(const noncopyable &other) = delete;
};
class Foo : private noncopyable {
};
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 3:29 PM Sean Callanan <scalla...@apple.com> wrote:
> The issue I have with the DISALLOW_ macro is that when you're looking to
> see what sort of constructors etc. are possible, you now have to look
> through a macro. Personally, I like to see what constructors are available
> on an object in one list, and not have to guess about whether e.g. a move
> constructor is present or disallowed.
>
> Sean
>
> On Sep 27, 2016, at 3:24 PM, Jim Ingham <jing...@apple.com> wrote:
>
> Why? The macro states the intent explicitly, rather than having to deduce
> it from details scattered through the class definition.
>
> Jim
>
> On Sep 27, 2016, at 3:13 PM, Sean Callanan via lldb-dev <
> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> Doing it everywhere would be a public service IMO. I don't like macros
> either.
>
> Sean
>
> On Sep 27, 2016, at 3:07 PM, Zachary Turner via lldb-dev <
> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> FWIW LLVM removed all it's disallow copy / assign macros in favor of
> explicitly writing it. I agree it's easier to just change the macro, but I
> would just do what LLVM does as long as you don't mind the extra work.
>
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 3:01 PM Daniel Austin Noland via lldb-dev <
> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 09/27/2016 03:37 PM, Enrico Granata wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 27, 2016, at 1:09 PM, Daniel Austin Noland via lldb-dev <
> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> * Prefer explicitly deleted copy ctor / assignments over multiline macro
> DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN
>
>
> Why not just move DISALLOW_COPY_AND_ASSIGN over to using =delete ? That
> seems like a trivial change..
>
> That was my first thought as well. Still, I personally try to avoid
> macros. On the other hand that one is simple enough that it may be
> justified.
>
>
> Thanks,
> *- Enrico*
> 📩 egranata@.com ☎️ 27683
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-dev mailing list
> lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
lldb-dev mailing list
lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
