build difficulty

[Stephan Bergmann]

On 08/30/2013 11:39 AM, Fridrich Strba wrote:
> On 30/08/13 11:11, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
>> ...because boost::noncopyable has become the de-facto standard idiom for
>> this, at least for pre-C++11 code that depends on Boost anyway.
>> [citation missing]
>
> Sure, nice to have standard idiom that causes us to have to work-around
> implementation bugs. Where two private declarations could be enough. But
> then maybe I am too low-level for the modern C++ developers. I even know
> how to manage my memory myself :)

The working hypothesis is that if a configuration fails to process uses 
of boost::noncopyable, it is sufficiently broken to fail on more 
elaborate uses of Boost further down the LO build, too,

Stephan