On 23/08/11 09:05, Julian Gonggrijp wrote:
Eric Niebler wrote:
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.
I think this is the sort of thing that move_if_noexcept was designed for. See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2009/n2983.html On the other hand, the authors there declare that move_if_noexcept should never be used in new code, which should rather offer a conditional strong guarantee, so maybe that's what you should do here. John Bytheway