Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote:
You seem to have arguments for both sides, undefined and usable object.
I'm terrible explaining my points. My main argument is that for objects that have default-constructor (like shared_ptr), little overhead is needed to implement full reusability. The same happens with containers (except for maybe allocator copying, but stateful allocators are, well..., not very well supported).
I believe for most we want that move-constructors imply in almost-zero overhead, after all which is the benefit of moving a temporary if it has significant overhead?
The problem is that you might move objects that are not temporaries. See my other post about std::vector
You have written a lot of allocators for the shmem library, and you probably had to workaround the many copies that the standard allows. Wouldnt it be better to have:
std::list<std::vector<...> > foo();
Have almost 0 overhead instead of guaranteed usability of moved objects?
I think both can be achieved.
IMHO, have assignment and destruction guaranteed to work on a moved object is guarantee enough.
Ok. I will add move constructor and move assignment. But that means they are reusable. And that's my point.
You seem to be proposing creating a new move-constructor, which I believe is now too late and a little bit more complex than needed. A simple moving + assignment is enough to have the object usable again.
I might have missed the assignment requirement in the discussion, sorry. I thought that no guarantee was offered for a moved object. Regards, Ion