> On Jul 14, 2019, at 12:40 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
> wrote:
>
> Maybe there is no need for a move operator ? I have not seen any argument
> that makes the need for this operator crystal clear.
>
> When I read your proposal, my first thought was: "solution looking for a
> problem."
Look at
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019, Ryan Joseph wrote:
On Jul 14, 2019, at 11:58 AM, Michael Van Canneyt
wrote:
You are assuming here that there is a problem. Has it occurred to you that
maybe there is no problem and that a solution is simply not needed?
How is this not a problem? Sorry I don’t
> On Jul 14, 2019, at 11:58 AM, Michael Van Canneyt
> wrote:
>
> You are assuming here that there is a problem. Has it occurred to you that
> maybe there is no problem and that a solution is simply not needed?
How is this not a problem? Sorry I don’t follow you.
Regards,
Ryan Joseph
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019, Ryan Joseph wrote:
On Jul 14, 2019, at 8:55 AM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
The question then still remains: why would a user want to call a copy
operator when the data is just moved from a temp to another place?
Having an explicit copy operator when there is no use case for
> On Jul 14, 2019, at 8:55 AM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> The question then still remains: why would a user want to call a copy
> operator when the data is just moved from a temp to another place?
> Having an explicit copy operator when there is no use case for it only
> requires programmers to
On 13/07/2019 15:13, Ryan Joseph wrote:
>
>
>> On Jul 13, 2019, at 8:21 AM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>>
>> In which scenarios do you need such a custom "move" operator, rather
>> than simply allowing the compiler to just copy the data from one place
>> to the other without calling a destructor on the
> On Jul 13, 2019, at 8:21 AM, Jonas Maebe wrote:
>
> In which scenarios do you need such a custom "move" operator, rather
> than simply allowing the compiler to just copy the data from one place
> to the other without calling a destructor on the old instance?
Not sure off the top of my head
On 10/07/2019 22:36, Ryan Joseph wrote:
> So I've started using the record management operators in earnest and see a
> real need for another “Move” operator in order to prevent the constant
> unnecessary copies. If you look at the example in the bug report you’ll see
> where adding a Move
So I've started using the record management operators in earnest and see a real
need for another “Move” operator in order to prevent the constant unnecessary
copies. If you look at the example in the bug report you’ll see where adding a
Move operator will save you 2 copies and that it works as
