On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Roman Kononov <ro...@binarylife.net> wrote: > 2010-11-30 20:40 CST, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> said: >>However, that doesn't change the fact you're trying to move from a >>const object, which is obviously wrong. > > Not really, because the 2 const objects are about to be destroyed.
The fact that the objects are about to be destroyed makes it reasonable to bind an rvalue reference to them -- but it doesn't make it reasonable to bind any kind of non-const reference to them (and an rvalue-ref-to-const is a strange and largely useless beast). If you want to be able to change an object during its lifetime, don't make it const. -- James
