[boost] Re: memcpy_copyable<> and memcpy_moveable<> type traits

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-26 11:11:24

"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> I guess there is no equivalent to memcpy_moveable: but it looks rather
>> dangerous, what state is the original object left in afterwards etc?
>
> None. There is no original object after the move, only raw storage.

...which is a different meaning from move in our move proposal

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