Could you elaborate on these? You've given some examples of move assignments, but I'm not sure how that would translate to move _construction_, since the examples here seem to be based around the fact that you're assigning to an already existing object rather than constructing a completely new one?

Maybe an example of these translated to use trivial relocation would make it clearer?

On 13 March 2025 11:01:14 GMT, Ell via Std-Discussion <std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>P2786R13 defines replaceability as the equivalence between move
>assignment, and destruction + move construction. While it conceptually
>holds for many types, assignment usually has to be careful around
>possible aliasing. For example, the paper calls out std::shared_ptr as
>being replaceable, but consider:
>
> struct X {
> std::shared_ptr<X> x;
> };
>
> int main () {
> std::shared_ptr<X> x = std::make_shared<X> ();
>
> x->x = std::make_shared<X> ();
>
> x = std::move (x); // (1)
> x = std::move (x->x); // (2)
> }
>
>Neither (1) nor (2) can be substituted for destroy + reconstruct.
>
>It seems like the definition of replaceability should somehow exclude
>those cases, or else many types become non-replaceable.