From: daniel.kruegler@googlemail.com   
      
   On 2011-11-23 01:39, Daniel Krügler wrote:   
   > Note that even with concepts these constrained member functions would   
   > not have changed the actual copy-constructor into a "constrained special   
   > member function", see 9.2 p19:   
   >   
   > "A constrained member is treated as a constrained template (14.11)   
   > whose template requirements include the requirements specified in its   
   > member-requirement clause and the requirements of each enclosing   
   > constrained template."   
   >   
   > This has the effect that 12.8, especially footnote 113:   
   >   
   > "Because a template constructor or a constructor whose first parameter   
   > is an rvalue reference is never a copy constructor, the presence of such   
   > a constructor does not suppress the implicit declaration of a copy   
   > constructor. Such constructors participate in overload resolution with   
   > other constructors, including copy constructors, and, if selected, will   
   > be used to copy an object."   
   >   
   > was still in effect and thus would not have prevented the copy/move   
   > constructor to be declared.   
      
   Should this conclusion have shocked anyone, I should quickly add that   
   this wording effect was probably not intended  - and the concept-enabled   
   Standard library was already built on top of the assumption that this   
   "just works" ;-)   
      
   During that time a corresponding core issues had been opened under the   
   umbrella of "concept issues", see   
      
   http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_closed.html#844   
      
   Greetings from Bremen,   
      
   Daniel Krügler   
      
      
   --   
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)