@disable

[Pelle Månsson]

On 01/15/2010 07:35 AM, john foo wrote:
> Walter Bright Wrote:
>
>> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>>> Exactly, it seems to me that the generalization in this case is
>>> counterproductive.
>>
>> It's similar to the motivation for the "= delete" capability proposed
>> for C++0x. Lawrence Crowl makes a good case for it:
>>
>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2326.html#delete
>>
>> Lawrence mentions several uses for it.
>
> So you're copying yet another C++0x feature and renaming it to attract more positive publicity..

How is this not a good thing?