[cfe-dev] Move constructor forces copy assignment to be implicitly defaulted?

Suman Kar skarpio at gmail.com
Sun May 27 23:52:14 PDT 2012

On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Howard Hinnant <hhinnant at apple.com> wrote:
> Right.  I mean that they don't exist, just as in C++98/03.  Deleted move members are generally problematic as they inhibit "copying" from rvalues.  If you have valid copy members and deleted move members, you can't return such an object from a function.

Okay, I still can't wrap my head around the last sentence. This looks ominous.

> My eyes were glazing over during this phase of standardization.  But you might take a look at N3201.

This. And N3174 and Dave Abraham's posts are illuminating.

A big thank you again!


More information about the cfe-dev mailing list