I see. I found some information about the reloc-proposal. I'm not too keen
about the new constructor and assignment operator, and I also think that
`reloc` may be slightly dangerous in turning it into a keyword. But other
than that I think the proposal seems quite similar to what I want to do.
Making it into an attribute instead of a keyword should make it less
probable to break current libraries/projects however. And it would make it
possible to mark move-semantic operators with the keyword instead of adding
new operations which may make the language slightly less "more complex".

// Robin

On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 2:33 PM Sebastian Wittmeier via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Not being allowed to use a variable anymore after a call sounds like
> relocating a variable instead of just containing a valid object in a
> move-from state.
>
>
>
> There are several proposals in flight about relocating. Perhaps you could
> see, if you're use case is covered or how this feature would integrate with
> the relocation mechanism.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> *Von:* Robin Savonen Söderholm via Std-Proposals <
> std-proposals_at_[hidden]>
> *Gesendet:* Fr 26.07.2024 13:11
> *Betreff:* [std-proposals] Attribute [[destructive]]
> *An:* std-proposals_at_[hidden];
> *CC:* Robin Savonen Söderholm <robinsavonensoderholm_at_[hidden]>;
> I got the idea to make a type to simplify forwarding, e.g. by doing
> something like:
> ```c++
> template <typename T>
> class as_forward {
> T&& val_;
>
> public:
> constexpr as_forward(...) ...
> [[destructive]] constexpr T&& operator*() { return
> std::forward<T>(val_); }
> };
> ```
>
> In which the `[[destructive]]`-attribute would be a marker for the
> compiler that once this function is called, it should be deemed the
> end-of-scope for the object (-s) it is called on and any usage of the
> variable afterwards should make the program ill-formed (or at least, give a
> compiler warning that can be made an error). However, I realize as I am
> writing this email that a similar function would be of use for function
> parameters as well, so if the attribute can be applied to parameters, we
> could have a `std::move_d(...)` that behaves similarly.
> It could help library writers to produce even safer C++-code, and would
> open up for forwarding-types similar to the prototype above.
>
> I have never written a proposal before, but would this be a library or
> core-language proposal?
>
> // With best regards,
> Robin Savonen Söderholm
>
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>