Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #15237

Re: Default move constructor/assignment

From woodbrian77@gmail.com
Newsgroups comp.lang.c++
Subject Re: Default move constructor/assignment
Date 2012-04-06 23:26 -0700
Organization http://groups.google.com
Message-ID <19996601.695.1333779961722.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yndg18> (permalink)
References (1 earlier) <4f7d3aa0$0$3114$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> <28811616.820.1333614389405.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yno37> <4f7d62ac$0$3066$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi> <24078035.279.1333643732405.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynes7> <4f7e7f21$0$4360$7b1e8fa0@news.nbl.fi>

Show all headers | View raw

On Friday, April 6, 2012 12:29:05 AM UTC-5, Juha Nieminen wrote:
>   I'm glad that move constructors are implicitly generated by the
> compiler at least on simple cases because if they weren't, that would
> *severely* limit the usefulness of having them in the first place.
> 
>   For example, you would benefit from move constructors when using eg.
> a std::vector directly, but immediately when you put that std::vector
> inside a simple struct, you would lose those benefits (unless you went
> into the trouble of explicitly declaring the move constructor).
> 
>   I didn't really get what kind of code do these implicit move constructors
> break, but I'm pretty certain that the benefits greatly outweight the
> disadvantages.

Yeah, I pretty much agree.

http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t730954-class-invariants-and-implicit-move-constructors-c-0x.html

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Default move constructor/assignment Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-04-04 09:21 +0000
  Re: Default move constructor/assignment Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-04-05 06:24 +0000
    Re: Default move constructor/assignment Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> - 2012-04-05 16:48 +0900
    Re: Default move constructor/assignment woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2012-04-05 01:26 -0700
      Re: Default move constructor/assignment Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-04-05 09:15 +0000
        Re: Default move constructor/assignment woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2012-04-05 09:35 -0700
          Re: Default move constructor/assignment Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2012-04-06 05:29 +0000
            Re: Default move constructor/assignment woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2012-04-06 23:26 -0700
              Re: Default move constructor/assignment Howard Hinnant <howard.hinnant@gmail.com> - 2012-04-07 10:34 -0700
                Re: Default move constructor/assignment woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2012-04-07 15:59 -0700
                Re: Default move constructor/assignment woodbrian77@gmail.com - 2012-04-07 18:58 -0700
                Re: Default move constructor/assignment SG <s.gesemann@gmail.com> - 2012-04-10 02:21 -0700

csiph-web