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

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-26 11:37:03

David Abrahams wrote:
> "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

Most definitely. "Our" move writes to the source, memcpy_move does not
since, well, memcpy doesn't.