1. In the docs, "comes in handful" => "comes in handy" 2. IMO, it's almost irresponsible to advertise move_iterator without saying that it's really *only* safe to use when you know implementation details of the algorithm or function to which you're passing it. In particular, it must not attempt to copy from any given position in the sequence more than once. 3. Why doesn't test_move_inserter use std::copy? 4. This sentence doesn't make any sense to me; it needs clarification. I would make a suggestion, but, well, I don't understand what you're trying to say The last one has the same behaviour as std::uninitialized_copy but since several standand library implementations don't play very well with move_iterators, this version is a portable version for those willing to use move iterators. 5. The section on constructor forwarding seems to imply that constructors are the only thing that will be forwarded, when of course that's not the case. 6. These sentences don't make sense to me together. They have no obvious connection to one another. To which limitations are you referring? Fortunately, most constructors take arguments by value, by const-reference or by rvalue reference. If these limitations are accepted, the forwarding emulation of a N-argument case requires just N overloads. This library makes this emulation easy with the help of BOOST_FWD_REF and boost::forward As far as I can tell from the implementation, BOOST_FWD_REF just generates a const& in emulation mode, which isn't much of an emulation at all. 7. "David Abrahams suggested the use of class rv class": too much class :-) -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing Software Development Training http://www.boostpro.com Clang/LLVM/EDG Compilers C++ Boost