Re: [Boost-users] noncopyable and move semantics

On 7/28/2011 6:12 PM, Nathan Ridge wrote:

...

On 28 July 2011 13:58, Nathan Ridge mailto:zeratul976@hotmail.com> wrote:

...

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.

On the other hand, I think that is the most common case:

I agree, I think that will be a common case. Having a different base class name prevents silent breaking code, and can be better targeted to address this case. It will be useful for giving uniform meaning on all compilers, which in real life interpret the specs differently or have partial support. Hide that portability issues inside the class.