On 28 July 2011 13:58, Nathan Ridge <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:zeratul976@hotmail.com">zeratul976@hotmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">

<div class="im">That&#39;s fine, but then could we introduce a different class that</div>
inhibits copying but not moving? I think this would be useful, as in<br>
a large percentage of cases, when you want an object to be non-<br>
copyable, you still want it to be movable.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don&#39;t see anything wrong with that.  I&#39;m not sure how useful it is, as it only makes a real semantic difference when you want the implicitly declared move constructor and move assignment operator but no copying, which I&#39;m guessing is rare (but I really don&#39;t have enough experience with r-value references to say more than that).</div>

</div>-- <br> Nevin &quot;:-)&quot; Liber  &lt;mailto:<a href="mailto:nevin@eviloverlord.com" target="_blank">nevin@eviloverlord.com</a>&gt;  (847) 691-1404<br>