Hacker News Reader

Does anyone know if they decided to fix rvalue reference and move semantics as proposed? Someone suggested that move semantics should be handled in the destructor, not the constructor.

View on HN

I don't believe that any "destructive move" proposals have advanced out of Evolution and into Core. The issue is whether moved-from objects should be in a weird twilight state ("valid but unspecified"), which is the status quo, or whether moving from an object should straight-up destroy it. The question is... controversial.

I read about the fact that there should be no move constructor, only a move destructor. When you think about it, it's awesome and solves all problems.

You get rid of rvalue references except for universal references.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com