28 Jul
2011
28 Jul
'11
7:34 p.m.
On 28 July 2011 13:58, Nathan Ridge
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@eviloverlord.com (847) 691-1404