Post-Meeting News about Implicit Move?

S

Scott Meyers

Does anybody know what was decided about implicit move at the latest committee
meeting, e.g., what the fates of N3174 and N3153 were?

Thanks,

Scott
 
S

SG

Does anybody know what was decided about implicit move at the latest committee
meeting, e.g., what the fates of N3174 and N3153 were?

As far as I know, the decision was in favor of Stroustrup's N3174. But
my only source is this:

<http://translate.google.com/translate?
js=n&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F
%2Fcpplover.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F11%2Fc0x.html>

I have to say I'm glad about how it turned out.

Cheers!
Sebastian
 
A

Anthony Williams

Scott Meyers said:
Does anybody know what was decided about implicit move at the latest
committee meeting, e.g., what the fates of N3174 and N3153 were?

The accepted paper was N3203, which will be in the post-meeting
mailing. You get an implicit move constructor and assignment operator
only if there is no user-declared copy constructor, copy assignment
operator or destructor.

Additionally, implicit generation of the copy constructor and copy
assignment operator is *deprecated* if there is a user-declared
destructor or copy assignment operator/copy constructor as
appropriate. It is inhibited if there is a user-declared move
constructor or move assignment operator.

Anthony
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top