Subject: Re: [Boost-users] noncopyable and move semantics
From: Nathan Ridge (zeratul976_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-28 14:58:05
> In order to reduce the chances of silently breaking existing code, the
> rules of C++0x were chosen so that a C++03 "noncopyable" (in quotes
> because in C++03 the closest we can get to that is to have an
> unimplemented private copy constructor and copy assignment operator)
> class automatically is a noncopyable+nonmoveable class under C++0x. I
> really don't think we should mess with that.
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.
Regards,
Nate