On Tuesday 02 July 2002 8:26 am, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | On Monday 01 July 2002 6:11 pm, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 05:24:13PM +0100, Angus Leeming wrote:
> >> > > [If do, cant' this be made tmore transparent somehow?]
> >> >
> >> > Wrap you signal inside LyXSignal ?
> >> >
> >> > template<typename Signal>
> >> > class LyXSignal : public Signal{
> >> > LyXSignal(LyXSignal const &) {}
> >> > };
> >>
> >> Do we have that already?
> >>
> >> Andre'
> |
> | No, I just made it up. Would it not do the trick though?
>
> But you loost all the semantics for this particular signal right?
What do you lose? (Genuinely mystified.) This class derives from
boost::signalX, so we retain all that beast's semantics. All we do is state
explicitly that copy-construction does not copy at all but generates a fresh,
empty instance.
> I'd prefere the explicit copy constructor.
