<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Brandon Allbery <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:allbery.b@gmail.com" target="_blank">allbery.b@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><span class=""><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 9:56 AM, René J.V. <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rjvbertin@gmail.com" target="_blank">rjvbertin@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">I don't see the point in assigning the delete operator to a constructor nor how that could be valid C++?</blockquote></div><br></span>Aha. I take that to mean you can now suppress individual implicitly created constructors</div></div></blockquote></div><br clear="all"><div>Ok, not quite. <a href="http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13654927/why-explicitly-delete-the-constructor">http://stackoverflow.com/questions/13654927/why-explicitly-delete-the-constructor</a></div><div><br></div><div>Also I find your faith in the sanity of C++ syntax to be charmingly naïve :)</div><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates</div><div><a href="mailto:allbery.b@gmail.com" target="_blank">allbery.b@gmail.com</a> <a href="mailto:ballbery@sinenomine.net" target="_blank">ballbery@sinenomine.net</a></div><div>unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad <a href="http://sinenomine.net" target="_blank">http://sinenomine.net</a></div></div></div>
</div></div>