Talk:cpp/language/move constructor


KK 03:34, 29 January 2013 (PST)KK What is the difference between "Implicitly-declared move constructor" section and "Deleted implicitly-declared move constructor". Can not we combine those two sections into one section.

the first section lists the conditions when the compiler declares a move constructor (which is the first thing people want to know: when does the compiler generate code?). The second section lists the conditions when the compiler prohibits moving. I feel they are reasonably distinct, although they were of course written simply following the description in the standard and are open for rearrangement. Do keep in mind that all special member function pages would need to rearrange the same way for consistency. --Cubbi 07:19, 29 January 2013 (PST)
I think the current layout is better too. P12 20:45, 29 January 2013 (PST)
My concern is it has some duplicate information. Like "Implicitly-declared move constructor" contains, "there are no user-declared move assignment operators" and "Deleted implicitly-declared move constructor" contains, T has a user-defined move constructor or move assignment operator. And if you remove "no" in former section they can be part of latter section. KK 22:34, 29 January 2013 (PST)KK
Yes, that's true. It is possible to remove "there are no user-declared move assignment operators" from the "implicitly declared" section with no loss of information. However, the rest of information seems to be not duplicate, in particular, the "implicitly deleted" section doesn't talk about destructor, copy ctor and copy assigment operator. What do you think? P12 23:13, 29 January 2013 (PST)
Seconded. KK 00:18, 30 January 2013 (PST)KK
Taking away content from implicitly declared rules would be an error. But you're right about redundancy: in fact, this is a copy-paste slip-up. move-assignment makes copy constructors deleted, and I wrote this following copy ctor page. Will fix --Cubbi 06:11, 30 January 2013 (PST)