220 25471 <57841c61-2780-4ee7-9421-516119e81536@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: barry.revzin@gmail.com Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: Relocation as a solution for the valueless variant problem? Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 11:21:59 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 87 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <57841c61-2780-4ee7-9421-516119e81536@isocpp.org> References: <4187538d-68fa-4582-ba26-f406479abe67@isocpp.org> <105d82bc-e1cf-4795-894c-112cd591c3af@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_465_558292139.1459966919792" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1459966927 7753 80.91.229.3 (6 Apr 2016 18:22:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:22:07 +0000 (UTC) Cc: isocppgroup@denisbider.com To: ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCJJTG7CS4ARBSFHSW4AKGQEAQYQYPI@isocpp.org Wed Apr 06 20:22:03 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-qg0-f69.google.com ([209.85.192.69]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ans5a-0004fu-UB for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2016 20:22:03 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-qg0-f69.google.com with SMTP id g33sf26667638qgf.2 for ; Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:22:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isocpp-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=u+d95IYUhkyTypl0bHal5H2scaZcBBxnZlNRW07m1m4=; b=oi/1Ggmw+Ul6Vra3hgOB/eK2w2bDGaZvcfPIn7tO56ztlPH9/YvBtoJ3yN6yIfdbHd hpuAngFiwLUo65usvgTdmjuyK8Hn8Bg3Nlk6/v2XVZbFad69i/HmMQfiISxLazp2nBWw 7RMKEZ821Xb1oQ0Ru7CZkk+zNO5Q+HhkgFGdN1H1oT1mMOgqXgw2M2erRWzvEc6W/GbX QsLwt6zXsMuMWV0PvZPn7T08UetELD1P8E4kctsZb2CTQOZ6aw+a9F7DQwlNNedTlI2k Y3AxcPjU93CCHXkr8DLzIFBEdJARH5KqoF4kHM1p3SdfDVaLkKVqI5DXL4eygACiyePI x4tw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=u+d95IYUhkyTypl0bHal5H2scaZcBBxnZlNRW07m1m4=; b=mR1A4Ox+XksCmkg46oMgC67ztBq2h78bY+ZPDNSLIJK3/CPKRT79NxSRUp2eM9y/P1 YFvF9QxWy2/50t/FmA0UsYZjWq5ILI4KMDv0pZxlnxOyDHgMFur8ly4kuv/Zlst+ykSz 8fPdhUFa0vrh34Z9sc1DovgOn2vCSsiP5jE/TrFvJpeAIchOlZrsF91SdGmcAGwAi4N0 lfgdUsdNYcCEL9IuetXgGg6hYIU4Xns/m+43993zV1N/xU+MyCllUvqrNSjPz5aCXhsI JJh/NkT+zTrC/Wy9Hvs9sTNTtLqUVcCpKVyfgKLLtjrlk7rXTym97WP1qiEAF5Il0U8/ yPGQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post :list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=u+d95IYUhkyTypl0bHal5H2scaZcBBxnZlNRW07m1m4=; b=Z3SXDa55/l8Nf/gtmdkFm281+Go6A6ok6Y8iK4MwhBh88iXvFIRb6wMB8YtiXWwNpI c+vH1sqOg0T0EI/Qlf/MrbQoKB5yQLFsgQ9CH21iiDOCNNOvH8uumi3MN75UwzOB2Nnr FhX9GDhg5T4M7NMeaj4xd2Jm3dbjMYsOuHHMqUyMYFP3vaLk6YCijPTvBekF2Ef6OAmi Qvm4K+p4Z7si4NGHYZC7ii8PrF/nFoOqqDwBvUUAyzWJWVYXLCOljPhc/3fvzmtnALF8 SIxF49oGqyxzbg/D6kGcUWqiun8vFTq/O95ZMqrJQFs/ceDqEfsY2oKyew+UG5nRb+k6 4bIw== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJ+d9wkTEPjae1otJLq7cZ64U/kUi5R1M76oCRgY5NF+DZ24XlaAHnSXY2FVqz5cQ== X-Received: by 10.31.151.21 with SMTP id z21mr21467924vkd.7.1459966921909; Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:22:01 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.107.39.206 with SMTP id n197ls557771ion.52.gmail; Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:22:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.61.200 with SMTP id s8mr570729igr.3.1459966920718; Wed, 06 Apr 2016 11:22:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: Barry.Revzin@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Spam-Checked-In-Group: std-proposals@isocpp.org X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:25471 Archived-At: ------=_Part_465_558292139.1459966919792 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_466_1751615627.1459966919793" ------=_Part_466_1751615627.1459966919793 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Hence the term "destructive move": the object is moved from and > *destroyed*. I personally prefer that idea to what is basically just > another form of "move, but I really *really* mean it this time." > What do you consider as the difference between the two? I've always thought of destructive move as basically just that - move but seriously it's dead now e.g.: T x; T y = std::destructive_move(x); // or whatever the syntax ends up being x.bar(); // error, x is actually dead. not mostly dead. dead. Regardless, is there anything new on the destructive move front? I don't see any new papers on the topic over the last few mailings... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/57841c61-2780-4ee7-9421-516119e81536%40isocpp.org. ------=_Part_466_1751615627.1459966919793 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hence the term "destructive move": the object is moved f= rom and destroyed. I personally prefer that idea to what is basicall= y just another form of "move, but I really really mean it this = time."=C2=A0

What do y= ou consider as the difference between the two? I've always thought of d= estructive move as basically just that - move but seriously it's dead n= ow e.g.:

T x;
T = y =3D std::destructive_move(x); // or whatever the syntax ends up being
x.bar(); // error, x is actually dead. not mostly dead. dead.

=C2=A0Regardless, is there anything new= on the destructive move front? I don't see any new papers on the topic= over the last few mailings...=C2=A0

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposa= ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.= com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/57841c61-2780-4ee7-9421-516119e81536= %40isocpp.org.
------=_Part_466_1751615627.1459966919793-- ------=_Part_465_558292139.1459966919792-- .