Board index » cppbuilder » Re: About operator=

2005-10-31 11:13:04 PM
cppbuilder74
tinyabs wrote:
class TMyObject
{
// OTHER STUFF
private:
// HIDE COPY CONSTRUCTOR AND ASSIGNMENT OPERATOR
// AND DON'T DEFINE BODIES. WE DON'T PLAN FOR
// INSTANCES OF THIS CLASS TO BE COPIED.
TMyObject(const TMyObject &);
TMyObject & operator=(const TMyObject &);
// OTHER STUFF
};
I'm no language lawyer, but I tested this long ago and it appeared to
be the minimal amount of code that would suffice.
--
Bill D. Pirkle
www.worldchessnetwork.com - Where the world plays chess!
www.tentonhammer.com - EQ2, WoW, GuildWars, Middle-Earth Online, and
more!
 

Take a look at these prototypes.
class TMyObject
{
protected:
TMyObject(const TMyObject &myObject); // copy ctor
void operator=(const TMyObject &myObject); // non-returning assignment
TMyObject &operator=(const TMyObject &myObject); // returning assignment
};
My condition is that this class is not copyable.
My Question is, do I need to declare the 2 assignemnt operator so that are
in protected scope or just declare anyone will do? My doubt is about which
variant of the operator= was created automatically if I didn't declare them.
Thanks.
 

"tinyabs" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
let them be any more accessible than they need be.
And a little point. The above shouldn't compile, because
functions only on heir return type.
(A source of occasional annoyance. Ah well.)
Alan Bellingham
--
ACCU Conference 2006 - 19-22 April, Randolph Hotel, Oxford, UK
 

{smallsort}