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