Re: [boost] [shared_ptr] dangerous implementation of moveconstructor

Joe Gottman wrote:

No, but I would expect foo.get_allocator() to return some valid allocator and not cause a segmentation fault. In general, I don't want functions that previously were always safe to be unsafe after a move.

To get back to shared_ptr, given p and q of type shared_ptr, would you be extremely disappointed if after: p = move( q ); q holds the old value of p instead of being empty? (Note that p may have had a value that you could consider "unsafe" in the context of the valid values of q.)