Re: [boost] [move] problem with msvc and BOOST_MOVABLE_BUT_NOT_COPYABLE

Subject: Re: [boost] [move] problem with msvc and BOOST_MOVABLE_BUT_NOT_COPYABLE
From: Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. (jhellrung_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-29 16:41:34

On 5/28/2010 11:45 PM, Ion Gaztañaga wrote:
> On 29/05/2010 1:29, Thomas Klimpel wrote:
>> The idea by Ilya Sokolov to modify the signature of the private copy
>> constructor and assignment operator in boost::noncopyable to a
>> non-const reference actually seems to make perfect sense.
>
> It's a good option, but I'm still reluctant. Adding a base class in
> boost namespace has also implications with ADL and it's unnecessary for
> compilers with deleted definitions (= delete). I need a bit more time to
> see pros/cons.
>
> Best,
>
> Ion

I, too, am (currently) against adding such a base class, for the above 
reasons and for the MSVC EBO reason Ion gave earlier.

- Jeff