David Abrahams wrote: > "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> I guess there is no equivalent to memcpy_moveable: but it looks >>> rather dangerous, what state is the original object left in >>> afterwards etc? >> >> None. There is no original object after the move, only raw storage. > > ...which is a different meaning from move in our move proposal
Most definitely. "Our" move writes to the source, memcpy_move does not since, well, memcpy doesn't. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
