28 Jul
2011
28 Jul
'11
6:58 p.m.
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