You backup the memory of a non-trivially movable class.   So you neither call the destructor, nor move constructor nor move operator.   But the object has a different address and a new object is started to be constructed at the old address.   With it for some amount of time you break all pointers and references to this object.     You would have to introduce a new property of a type, that there cannot be any pointers or references to it and it also has only member variables with that property and it inherits from those types only.   Your idea does not work for arbitrary classes and breaks the foundational guarantees an object should get.   An object might even not know itself that there is a pointer out there, if a member variable type creates and communicates the pointer.   That is a guarantee objects had for decades of C++ code. If you break it, it cannot be for arbitrary classes, only for specific ones.     -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von:Nikl Kelbon via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> Gesendet:Di 28.10.2025 17:13 Betreff:Re: [std-proposals] Way to get rid of valueless_by_exception in std::variant An:std-proposals_at_[hidden]; CC:Nikl Kelbon <kelbonage_at_[hidden]>; I dont see this as counter example. Its example of type, where move constructor does not guarantee... Any guarantees. So, its just correct behavior, where 1. variant not changed (still A) 2. B tried to construct and throws exception I think compiler who writes such beaty code must expect exactly such behavior  вт, 28 окт. 2025 г. в 20:58, Jonathan Wakely via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden] <mailto:std-proposals_at_[hidden]> >:   On Tue, 28 Oct 2025 at 15:04, Pavel Vazharov via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden] <mailto:std-proposals_at_[hidden]> > wrote: On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 4:46 PM Nikl Kelbon via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden] <mailto:std-proposals_at_[hidden]> > wrote: > > Thanks for the links, but I don't see any discussion of this particular idea there. Instead, they're discussing allocating the value on the heap or doubling the buffer.0308 The first sentence in the https://wg21.link/P0308 says This paper argues in section III that when variant's contained types have noexcept move constructors, variant shall never be valueless, that is, the specification should statically guarantee that valueless_by_exception() will never return true.   Ah yes, but you see that paper didn't discuss the possibility of "just make it work for all types by using magic" ;-)   -- Std-Proposals mailing list Std-Proposals_at_[hidden] <mailto: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