> If it were called std::has_copy_constructor, there would be no need to write even the title of this article Ah, but then someone might ask "Why does the libr

> If it were called std::has_copy_constructor, there would be no need to write even the title of this article Ah, but then someone might ask "Why does the library report that my type has no copy constructor, when it is in fact copyable?" And then the blog post would have to be about how it's possible for a type to be copy-constructed using a constructor (or constructor template) that is not itself a copy constructor. Of course, the existing state of C++ doesn't prevent us from having to write that blog post, either!