#include
class Test
{
public:
Test(const Test &) = delete;
Test &operator=(const Test &) = delete;
};
void fn(Test &a,
You are correct this is a bug: https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/819202/std-is-assignable-and-std-is-constructible-give-wrong-value-for-deleted-members
I took cplusplus.com's is_copy_assignable code:
#include <iostream>
#include <type_traits>
struct A { };
struct B { B& operator= (const B&) = delete; };
int main() {
std::cout << std::boolalpha;
std::cout << "is_copy_assignable:" << std::endl;
std::cout << "int: " << std::is_copy_assignable<int>::value << std::endl;
std::cout << "A: " << std::is_copy_assignable<A>::value << std::endl;
std::cout << "B: " << std::is_copy_assignable<B>::value << std::endl;
return 0;
}
And tested it on Visual Studio 2013 and got:
is_copy_assignable:
int: true
A: true
B: true
On gcc 4.8.1 I got:
is_copy_assignable:
int: true
A: true
B: false
Notably on the Visual Studio 2015 Beta this is fixed. I get:
is_copy_assignable:
int: true
A: true
B: false
How do you feel about betas ;)
May be a bit too late, but I have a workaround here: define another copy-and-move assignment operator, also as a deleted one. The compiler gives a warning, complaining about multiple copy operators (C4522), so you have to disable it for the class:
#pragma warning (disable: 4522)
class A
{
A& operator=(const A&) = delete;
A& operator=(A) = delete;
};
#pragma warning (default: 4522)
Now std::is_copy_assignable<A>::value
is false
.