Move in C++ without a std:move

4 comments

• sprocketz 4 minutes ago
  What is that makes NVRO so much more difficult to implement? Why couldn't they mandate that just like RVO? Do compilers literally just special case a simple return statement of a direct construction or something?
• fluoridation 18 minutes ago
  Unfortunately, I don't think there's getting away from just understanding value semantics to get the correct and/or performant behavior.
• tom_ 21 minutes ago
  If the author is reading: both complicated examples are the same.
  [-]
  • quuxplusone 8 minutes ago
    Yeah, the second one is supposed to read `Apple&& Cat(Apple&& val) { return val; }` — but the return type's `&&` was omitted by accident.
• hn45e7pbij 23 hours ago
  I'd push back slightly on move — at small scale the opposite has been true for me.
  [-]
  • dalvrosa 23 hours ago
    Not sure what you mean, but std::move is one of the greatest tools in C++
    [-]
    • pdpi 1 minute ago
      This is one case where Rust benefited from C++’s experience — move by default with opt-in clone/copy is IMO the better setup.