@disable

[john foo]

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..