Talk:Rule of three (C++ programming)

Computing Stub‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

C/C++ Unassessed Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject C/C++, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of C and C++ topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.C/C++Wikipedia:WikiProject C/C++Template:WikiProject C/C++C/C++
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Disambiguation

One of the references says Op. cit. - but which of the two others is meant?
copy assignment operator = copy constructor?

--Abdull (talk) 23:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to WP:DAB the citation and I've updated Assignment operator in C++ to distinguish it from the copy constructor. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Singleton?

In my opinion the singleton design pattern isn't relevant here, the rule of three is meant to prevent bugs of oversight and not enforcing semantics (such as "only one" singleton).

Additionally as far as I know a private destructor is not part of the singleton pattern. Motti (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's two separate (but related) concepts. What they have in common is that they represent two situations where the implicitly generated special member functions are undesired, but for different reasons. decltype (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Cline

Please consider discussing the linking of Marshall Cline instead of edit-warring. decltype (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of linking to a non-existent entry? It adds absolutely nothing to anyone reading this entry. Once there is a Marshall Cline entry by all means link to it but until it exists a dead link is only distracting. Motti (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant guideline is WP:RED. In short, a red link is usually appropriate if the target is a notable subject in its own right. The question then becomes whether Cline is notable. I think he may be, but I'd say it's a borderline case. For this reason I did not link when I initially added the info to the article. decltype (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]