https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=92727
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse <glisse at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #7) > I disagree. The static assert contains all you need to know, expert or not. > The benefit of seeing all the gory details is to figure out why something > didn't compile, and what (possibly implicit) requirement your code failed to > meet. If the maintainer of the library explicitly spelled out that > requirement with a static_assert, then there's no need to see any more > detail, because there's no need to infer the requirement from the code. Uh? Here, we would get an error message saying only that X is not copy-constructible. Sure, that's important to know. But it is helpful if the compiler can point out why it isn't copy-constructible, which it currently does.
