Re: [boost] Addressing the variant issue

From: Douglas Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-11 09:06:50

On Saturday 10 August 2002 11:55 pm, David Abrahams wrote:
> No, that's not the whole picture. Think of auto_ptr.
>
> > (This doesn't
> > jive well with the 'move' semantics above, because the source wouldn't
> > necessarily be safe to destruct).
>
> Right. That's why I'm suggesting trivially_movable means "movable with
> memcpy". We could also have swap_movable, which means "movable with swap
> for move assign, default-construct + swap for move construct"

Sounds good.

        Doug