Talk:cpp/types/is move assignable
From cppreference.com
The current example seems to be misleading. The comments in the NoMove class clearly state that: (a) declaring a copy-assignment operator "prevents implicit declaration of a default move assignment operator" -- however, at least for g++-8.3, this is not the case. Indeed, when adding " NoMove& operator=(NoMove&&) = delete;" to the class, the code gives a different output! (b) "the class is still move-assignable because its copy assignment operator can bind to an rvalue argument" -- but to be move-assignable, it would have to bind to an rvalue reference which is not possible if I understood correctly.
