Boost Users :
Subject: Re: [Boost-users] noncopyable and move semantics
From: Nevin Liber (nevin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-28 15:34:12
On 28 July 2011 13:58, Nathan Ridge <zeratul976_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> That's fine, but then could we introduce a different class that
> inhibits copying but not moving? I think this would be useful, as in
> a large percentage of cases, when you want an object to be non-
> copyable, you still want it to be movable.
I don't see anything wrong with that. I'm not sure how useful it is, as it
only makes a real semantic difference when you want the implicitly declared
move constructor and move assignment operator but no copying, which I'm
guessing is rare (but I really don't have enough experience with r-value
references to say more than that).
-- Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden]> (847) 691-1404
Boost-users list run by williamkempf at hotmail.com, kalb at libertysoft.com, bjorn.karlsson at readsoft.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, wekempf at cox.net