on Mon Jan 28 2013, Paul Smith <pl.smith.mail-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
This issue has been discussed more than once before, and nothing I say here is my own opinion, so please don't take it out on me. For example, see N3264 (CH-18 and US-85: Clarifying the state of moved-from objects (Revision 1)):
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2011/n3264.htm
and Dave confirms that,
I don't want to read into what Dave said too much, because he's here and he can clarify it. But I believe what he said is that specific algorithms, in their own localized context, practically only require destructibility and assignability. And even then, it's not something the standard actually guarantees in general, though, and the requirements are still much stricter, perhaps superfluously so. That's frustrating, no doubt about it, and it's a good selling point for having destructive move semantics - not for breaking the rules.
That doesn't sound like anything I meant to say, but I do agree fully with the resolutions (if not the NB comments) in the paper cited above. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing Software Development Training http://www.boostpro.com Clang/LLVM/EDG Compilers C++ Boost