[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
| Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
| | On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 03:32:20PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>>> Yes, you need to implement a non-throwing swap function, but then you
>>> are typesafe.
>>
| | [Typesafe?]
??
| Yes typesafe?
??
| | [Which is always a pain in the ass to maintain if you have a dozen members
| | or so...]
>
| ... and if there are a lot of class variables then something is wrong
| with the design... (I think I even heard you say that)
>
| And we want to be typesafe!
??
| | What the heck is wrong with the auto-generated version of operator=().
| | Less code means less maintance.
>
| auto generated versions of operator= are never typesafe.
??
I wonder what kind of drug I am on today...
I obviously mean exception safe.
--
Lgb
