From: Warren Young
Date: January 11 2010 4:14pm
Subject: Re: mysqlpp::ScopedConnection
List-Archive: http://lists.mysql.com/plusplus/8855
Message-Id: <4B4B4E5C.4020509@etr-usa.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 1/11/2010 5:51 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> There's no need to make the default constructor private. Declaring any
> other user-defined constructor disables the implicit generation of a
> default constructor.

True, but declaring it gives us a place to hang a comment saying why we 
did it that way.  It also tells anyone tempted to add one in the future 
why they shouldn't do that.

> Making it private means attempting to use it
> will give a "constructor is private" error rather than a "no such
> constructor" error.  Personally I think the latter is preferable so I
> would remove the declaration of the private default constructor.

This is reasonable, too.

So, how to resolve the tension?  Can we expect people to understand why 
something is non-existent and be content with that?  It seems to be 
human nature to invent all kinds of crazy things to fill in the places 
where non-existent things ought to be. >:)

The second patch is checked in now, with minor changes, so you all can 
make patches against head to support your arguments.