Hi all, boost::noncopyable interferes with the implicit generation of move construction and move assignment, so I was wondering if anybody had any thoughts on something like this: class noncopyable { protected: noncopyable() = default; noncopyable(noncopyable&&) = default; noncopyable& operator=(noncopyable&&) = default; noncopyable(noncopyable const&) = delete; noncopyable& operator=(noncopyable const&) = delete; }; Which would replace the existing technique when C++11 support is on. I guess it could be argued that non copyable should imply non moveable. However, you won't hear me defending that position; plenty of thought went into move semantics with the defaults chosen to have sa[f|n]e behaviour. The derived class will still be subject to that criteria, I'm just trying to prevent noncopyable from artificially inhibiting move semantics. Would anybody want nonmovable? nonmoveable? Any thoughts / comments / omissions gratefully received. Ben