Index: boost/noncopyable.hpp
===================================================================
diff --git a/trunk/boost/noncopyable.hpp b/trunk/boost/noncopyable.hpp
--- a/trunk/boost/noncopyable.hpp	(revision 77046)
+++ b/trunk/boost/noncopyable.hpp	(working copy)
@@ -9,6 +9,8 @@
 #ifndef BOOST_NONCOPYABLE_HPP_INCLUDED
 #define BOOST_NONCOPYABLE_HPP_INCLUDED
 
+#include <boost/config.hpp>
+
 namespace boost {
 
 //  Private copy constructor and copy assignment ensure classes derived from
@@ -21,11 +23,21 @@
   class noncopyable
   {
    protected:
+#ifndef BOOST_NO_DEFAULTED_FUNCTIONS
+      BOOST_CONSTEXPR noncopyable() = default;
+      ~noncopyable() = default;
+#else
       noncopyable() {}
       ~noncopyable() {}
+#endif
+#ifndef BOOST_NO_DELETED_FUNCTIONS
+      noncopyable( const noncopyable& ) = delete;
+      const noncopyable& operator=( const noncopyable& ) = delete;
+#else
    private:  // emphasize the following members are private
       noncopyable( const noncopyable& );
       const noncopyable& operator=( const noncopyable& );
+#endif
   };
 }
 
Index: libs/utility/utility.htm
===================================================================
diff --git a/trunk/libs/utility/utility.htm b/trunk/libs/utility/utility.htm
--- a/trunk/libs/utility/utility.htm	(revision 77046)
+++ b/trunk/libs/utility/utility.htm	(working copy)
@@ -84,7 +84,9 @@
 			will prevent the otherwise implicitly-generated functions (which don't have the 
 			proper semantics) from becoming a trap for other programmers.</p>
 		<p>The traditional way to deal with these is to declare a private copy constructor 
-			and copy assignment, and then document why this is done.&nbsp; But deriving 
+			and copy assignment, and then document why this is done.&nbsp; A new alternative 
+			was introduced in C++2011, declaring a copy constructor and a copy assignment 
+			operator, but marking both as <code>delete</code>d.&nbsp; Deriving 
 			from <b>noncopyable</b> is simpler and clearer, and doesn't require additional 
 			documentation.</p>
 		<p>The program <a href="noncopyable_test.cpp">noncopyable_test.cpp</a> can be used 
@@ -106,7 +108,9 @@
 			about the effect on compiler optimization of adding (even trivial inline) 
 			destructor declarations. He says &quot;Probably this concern is misplaced, 
 			because noncopyable will be used mostly for classes which own resources and 
-			thus have non-trivial destruction semantics.&quot;</p>
+			thus have non-trivial destruction semantics.&quot;&nbsp; With C++2011, using an 
+			optimized and trivial constructor and similar destructor can be enforced by 
+			declaring both and marking them <code>default</code>.</p>
 		<h2><a name="addressof">Function template addressof()</a></h2>
 		<p>Function <strong>addressof()</strong> returns the address of an object.</p>
 		<blockquote>
@@ -313,7 +317,7 @@
 </pre></blockquote>
 		<hr>
 		<p>Revised&nbsp; <!--webbot bot="Timestamp" S-Type="EDITED" S-Format="%d %B, %Y" startspan
--->04 September, 2008<!--webbot bot="Timestamp" endspan i-checksum="39369"
+-->18 February, 2012<!--webbot bot="Timestamp" endspan i-checksum="39369"
 -->
 		</p>
 		<p>&copy; Copyright Beman Dawes 1999-2003.</p>