🚀 go-pugleaf

|>         For the record, I have no objections to token passing per se --
|> it's just another storage management idiom. What I object to is the use
|> of copy syntax for a non-copying operation, and the fact that this
|> idiom is far less useful than reference counting, and not constrained
|> enough for a Holder style class.

And this, the expectation that constructors of the form X(X&) and X(const X&)
must perform a *copy* operation, is, IMHO, the trouble.  The original term was
reference constructor, a name which, in my opinion, carefully stepped around
all subtleties of language. Copy is a loaded term because the C++ meaning
and the English langauge definition are not the same.

-- 
John Hickin      Bell-Northern Research, Montreal, Quebec
(514) 765-7924   hickin@bnr.ca


[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]