Subject: [boost] noncopyable && C++11
From: Ben Pope (benpope81_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-07-06 03:26:59
boost::noncopyable interferes with the implicit generation of move
construction and move assignment, so I was wondering if anybody had any
thoughts on something like this:
noncopyable() = default;
noncopyable(noncopyable&&) = default;
noncopyable& operator=(noncopyable&&) = default;
noncopyable(noncopyable const&) = delete;
noncopyable& operator=(noncopyable const&) = delete;
Which would replace the existing technique when C++11 support is on.
I guess it could be argued that non copyable should imply non moveable.
However, you won't hear me defending that position; plenty of thought
went into move semantics with the defaults chosen to have sa[f|n]e
behaviour. The derived class will still be subject to that criteria, I'm
just trying to prevent noncopyable from artificially inhibiting move
Would anybody want nonmovable? nonmoveable?
Any thoughts / comments / omissions gratefully received.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk