On 28 July 2011 13:58, Nathan Ridge <zeratul976@hotmail.com> wrote:
That's fine, but then could we introduce a different class that
inhibits copying but not moving? I think this would be useful, as in
a large percentage of cases, when you want an object to be non-
copyable, you still want it to be movable.

I don't see anything wrong with that.  I'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'm guessing is rare (but I really don't have enough experience with r-value references to say more than that).
--
 Nevin ":-)" Liber  <mailto:nevin@eviloverlord.com>  (847) 691-1404