On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 02:14:24AM -0700, Andreas Lauser wrote:
> @blattms 
> > In my view (and the standard's) a class is move constructable already if it is copy constructable. Therfore I would normally expect that it also supports copying (an exception may be classes where this is _really_ expensive).
> 
> I suppose it will currently copy constructible in the "compiler won't complain" sense. But given the fact that the default copy constructor just copies an object's memory one-to-one, the destructor will be called twice for the same ERT handle which will probably lead to weird crashes. (haven't checked that either, though.)

I guess you misread me. I meant (correctly) copy-constructable implies
move-constructable. And was wondering whether it is a good idea to
delete already present (correct) copy constructors for no obvious
reason. But I might be missing something.