🚀 go-pugleaf

In <harvey.727664973@regina> harvey@opl.com (Harvey Reed) writes:

>db@argon.Eng.Sun.COM (David Brownell) writes:

>>...
>>So, a pair of proposals that I'd be happier to see accepted:

>>   (1)	It is an error for a class to have virtual functions and a
>>	nonvirtual destructor.

	A warning, perhaps.

>>   (2a) C++ compilers don't automagically generate ANYTHING for classes
>>	any more:  constructors, destructors, assignment and address-of
>>	operators, etc.  If such routines are used but not declared and
>>	defined, that is an error.

	Would break a large part of th the world (like all struct declarations
	for starters; see below).

>I think I would feel a lot better about my C++ compiler if I didn't
>have to make a copy-ctor private/unimplemented (as a safegaurd) just
>because I was afraid that I *might* be accidentally copying an object.
>It would be much better if the compiler simply said it was an error
>to copy without a copy-ctor (or whatever), then the programmer can:

>1) remove the need to copy
>2) install the proper method to do the copy

>This goes for all the other automagic stuff too! I cringe when I 
>think about automagically adding virtual destructors, even though
>they are most times needed...

	Another case for protecting programmers from themselves.  For:

		struct Point {
			int x, y;
		};

	I don't want to have to write a ctor and assign-op. especially
	when the generated ones would work perfectly.

	Whenerver one writes a class, one *has* to ask onesself: Do I
	need a ctor?  An assign-op?  One should have to ask onesself
	this regardless of whether the compiler did the default ones
	for one or not.  If one doesn't, then one is just careless.

	The default stuff is for convenience.  In my experience, and I
	would venture others', it's rare to have to forbid copy/assign
	anyway.  Unless you have a good reason to forbid them, who cares?
	Let users copy them.
-- 
	- Paul J. Lucas
	  AT&T Bell Laboratories
	  Naperville, IL