Can we get a bullet-point list of all the criticisms so that they can be addressed?

WL

> On Apr 30, 2022, at 11:19 AM, Giuseppe D'Angelo <giuseppe.dangelo_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On 30/04/2022 16:34, William Linkmeyer wrote:
>> Giuseppe wrote:
>>> (From a syntax point of view, I'm not sure how that is desirable, as one could no longer something like `other = reloc obj; delete &obj;`, but I don't think it's a particularly compelling use case...)
>> I would argue that the example given*is* a compelling use case for reloc. Remembering to delete objects (esp. at the right time) is a recipe for disaster.
>
> My example was about a use case for which one does need to use the name of the relocated object. I was just not sure about how realistic it is.
> The example had nothing to do with "remembering to delete", we have smart pointers and other strategies for that.
>
>
>> Anyway, for what it’s worth, I think this is a compelling paper and would like to help move it forward in a constructive way.
>
> The above point wasn't my main criticism. My main criticism was that the paper seems to settle on a convoluted syntax for the already existing move semantics (plus the p1144 bits). Did I misunderstand something?
>
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Giuseppe D'Angelo