[C++-sig] Protected destructor compile error

[David Abrahams]

Daniel Wallin <daniel at boost-consulting.com> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>> Did I mention I'm not making any heavy decisions while I'm on
>> vacation?  Why don't y'all discuss the tradeoffs here and decide
>> whether it's worth it.
>
> I think the incompatibility problem makes the change not worth the
> trouble. 

Well, in principle every version of Boost.Python produces incompatible
extension modules.  It just may be that some continue to work.  The
cost of a function pointer indirection is usually lost in the noise.

> This issue isn't common enough. Introducing a metafunction that
> can be specialized by the user OTOH is a really trivial change. I have
> code ready with a "is_destructible" metafunction, shall I add tests and
> check in?

It's okay by me if you add docs too ;)

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com