Honestly, I'm done talking with you. I really think you are arguing in
bad faith.
There are just too many proposals related to destructive moves,
move/relocate as language construct to prove that we need such a
facility.

śr., 2 mar 2022 o 13:49 Ville Voutilainen
<ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden]> napisał(a):
>
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 at 14:45, Maciej Cencora <m.cencora_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > Maybe it works for you, it certainly doesn't work for everyone, so no,
> > it is not a solution.
>
> Well, that makes our lives very easy, considering that there's no
> solution that works for everyone,
> so we don't need to do anything, ever.
>
> > > I didn't say it does what its name claims, I said it does what it
> > > claims to do. It's a well-documented
> > > facility that's been there since C++11, it's relatively easy to
> > > explain how it works and how to use it,
> > > and after such explanations, the complaints about it
> > > not-really-moving-right-there tend to not come up,
> > > except from language lawyers.
> > It is nowhere near 'easy' to explain what it does. Move-semantics is
> > topic that always takes most of the time to
> > to explain to devs that learn C++11.
>
> I wonder how you explain it, then. Using vector and unique_ptr as
> examples seems to make that
> explanation quite easy, and it doesn't take all that long.
>
>
> > > > So what exactly this new fair amount of complexity would be?
> > >
> > > Well, it's yet another language facility that needs to be learned.
> > > That in and of itself if additional complexity.
> > Refusing to add a new feature, because every new feature adds
> > complexity, is absurd. If we applied this logic to anything, we
> > wouldn't have C++11 or even C++ at all.
>
> What logic? Nobody's suggesting such logic. I merely pointed out that
> adding language level relocation
> has its own complexity, so it's not just a pure win.