Bug #3414
closedstd::is_move_constructible<T> does not guarantee that T has a move constructor
100%
Description
Because a copy constructor in the form T(T) or T(const T&) will also bind to an rvalue argument, thus satisfying is_move_constructible<T> without requiring the existence of a move constructor T(T&&).
Obviously the same applies to the _trivially_ and _nothrow_ variants, and a similar limitation applies to is_move_assignable (doesn't guarantee that the type has a move assignment operator) and to its variants.
In ndn-cxx we currently use these type traits paired with static_assert in Block and Buffer, but as explained above this is not sufficient to ensure that they have a move constructor or a move assignment operator.
Updated by Davide Pesavento almost 10 years ago
- Description updated (diff)
What we should do is deleting the pointless static asserts and explicitly declare the move constructor/assignment operator for those types (possibly defaulting them in the implementation, i.e. outside the class definition).
Updated by Davide Pesavento about 8 years ago
- Priority changed from Normal to Low
- Target version deleted (
v0.5)
Updated by Davide Pesavento over 7 years ago
- Status changed from New to In Progress
- Assignee set to Davide Pesavento
- Target version set to v0.7
Updated by Davide Pesavento over 7 years ago
- Status changed from In Progress to Code review
- % Done changed from 0 to 100
Updated by Davide Pesavento over 7 years ago
- Status changed from Code review to Closed