On 8/29/2011 2:22 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Certainly, for the common case, adding move constructors is a needless complication, and I'd _very_ leery of the ramifications of the compiler not being able to rely on a move having the bits stay absolutely identical (and a move constructor would make it possible for the struct's state to change completely instead of really being a move). It's not necessarily completely unreasonable, but you appear to have found what I would expect to be a _very_ abnormal use-case.
Andrei and I have talked about adding move constructors, but I agree with you that it really seems to be a tar pit we'd really like to avoid. C++ has a lot of subtle problems caused by supporting this, not the least of which is efficiency problems.
