Re: [Boost-users] noncopyable and move semantics

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] noncopyable and move semantics
From: John M. Dlugosz (mpbecey7gu_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-28 05:53:13

On 7/26/2011 11:35 AM, Nevin Liber wrote:

> Doesn't the problem go away if you don't use boost::noncopyable at all?  If one agrees
> that the C++0x mechanism is superior, is there still a use case under C++0x for
> boost::noncopyable?

Because some compilers support move references but don't support the =delete syntax.

In my mind "no copy" does not say anything about the ability to move.  In fact, move will 
typically be just dandy if the compiler handles it.  So I would like that meaning.

—John