template< class T >
struct is_move_constructible;
template< class T >
struct is_trivially_move_constructible;
template< class T >
struct is_nothrow_move_constructible;
If T
is not a complete type, (possibly cv-qualified) void, or an array of unknown bound, the behavior is undefined.
If an instantiation of a template above depends, directly or indirectly, on an incomplete type, and that instantiation could yield a different result if that type were hypothetically completed, the behavior is undefined.
If the program adds specializations for any of the templates described on this page, the behavior is undefined.
[edit] Helper variable templates template< class T >inline constexpr bool is_move_constructible_v =
inline constexpr bool is_trivially_move_constructible_v =
inline constexpr bool is_nothrow_move_constructible_v =
T
is move-constructible, false otherwise
Types without a move constructor, but with a copy constructor that accepts const T& arguments, satisfy std::is_move_constructible
.
Move constructors are usually noexcept, since otherwise they are unusable in any code that provides strong exception guarantee.
In many implementations, std::is_nothrow_move_constructible
also checks if the destructor throws because it is effectively noexcept(T(arg)). Same applies to std::is_trivially_move_constructible
, which, in these implementations, also requires that the destructor is trivial: GCC bug 51452, LWG issue 2116.
#include <string> #include <type_traits> struct Ex1 { std::string str; // member has a non-trivial but non-throwing move constructor }; static_assert(std::is_move_constructible_v<Ex1>); static_assert(!std::is_trivially_move_constructible_v<Ex1>); static_assert(std::is_nothrow_move_constructible_v<Ex1>); struct Ex2 { int n; Ex2(Ex2&&) = default; // trivial and non-throwing }; static_assert(std::is_move_constructible_v<Ex2>); static_assert(std::is_trivially_move_constructible_v<Ex2>); static_assert(std::is_nothrow_move_constructible_v<Ex2>); struct NoMove1 { // prevents implicit declaration of default move constructor; // however, the class is still move-constructible because its // copy constructor can bind to an rvalue argument NoMove1(const NoMove1&) {} }; static_assert(std::is_move_constructible_v<NoMove1>); static_assert(!std::is_trivially_move_constructible_v<NoMove1>); static_assert(!std::is_nothrow_move_constructible_v<NoMove1>); struct NoMove2 { // Not move-constructible since the lvalue reference // can't bind to the rvalue argument NoMove2(NoMove2&) {} }; static_assert(!std::is_move_constructible_v<NoMove2>); static_assert(!std::is_trivially_move_constructible_v<NoMove2>); static_assert(!std::is_nothrow_move_constructible_v<NoMove2>); int main() {}[edit] Defect reports
The following behavior-changing defect reports were applied retroactively to previously published C++ standards.
DR Applied to Behavior as published Correct behavior LWG 2196 C++11 the behavior was unclear if T&& cannot be formed the value produced is false in this case [edit] See alsoRetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4