https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92727
--- Comment #11 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10) > The bug in this example is that the push_back call needs to make a copy and > the type is not copyable. It's not a bug that the copy constructor is > implictly deleted. Knowing that the copy constructor is implicitly deleted > and why, doesn't actually help you figure out that you need to use std::move. Indeed, there are 2 cases where you get the error: - the type is meant to be move-only and you forgot to call std::move - the type is meant to be copyable, but you did something that results in a non-copyable type In the first case, the static assertion is good and to the point. It could even check if the type is move constructible and suggest using std::move in its message. In the second case, I'd love to know what I did wrong, and the extra information is more than welcome. As someone who is used to deciphering compiler messages, I tend to prefer having too much, in case it might be useful, rather than too little. Anyway, I am talking about verbosity in general, not specifically for this case, maybe for this case the details are less important, I didn't think too hard about it, and I am not preventing anyone from introducing the static_assert.
