Eric Niebler wrote:
(Julian, I'm having a hard time following the discussion because you're replying to multiple people in a single email. Those of us with threaded readers would prefer if you replied to us individually.)
I'm sorry for the confusion. I'll reply to every email separately from now on. :-)
Thought: the obvious default implementation should be to simply call move, but this gets complicated because move operations can throw. Then during unwinding you'll try to destruct an object that isn't in a destructible state. You would need to find a way to address the exception-safety issues. Perhaps the new noexcept keyword could help here.
Coincidentally I've been thinking along similar lines. Normal copy assignment might be a very interesting fallback option for move_raw as well. I'll use this in my upcoming proposal.