Why does the compiler require a copying constructor, need and have moving one and doesn't uses any of them?

Question

I\'ve already tried to ask this question but I wasn\'t clear enough. So here is one more try. And I am very sorry for my English ;)

Let\'s see the code:

Answer 1

The twisted logic is that you are supposed to write programs at a higher abstraction level. If an object has a copy constructor it can be copied, otherwise it cannot. If you tell the compiler this object shall not be copied it will obey you and not cheat. Once you tell it that it can be copied the compiler will try to make the copy as fast as possible, usually by avoiding the copy constructor.

As for the move constructor: It is an optimization. It tends to be faster to move an object from one place to another than to make an exact copy and destroy the old one. This is what move constructors are for. If there is no move constructor the move can still be done with the old fashioned copy and destroy method.