Search result don't show this page, only this - algorithm.move. Can it be corrected somehow? Ruslo 02:36, 24 August 2013 (PDT)

You're right, that's a bug. There is some discussion about it in the Main Page Talk section titled Search for "remove" does not show the C++ algorithm.
Unrelated question: for what does "incorrect operation" mean (i.e. undefined behavior, unspecified behavior, etc.)? For what types is this true? I'm having trouble finding evidence to support this claim. suggests that there is nothing in the standard that forbids self-move assignment. --Nate 14:23, 24 August 2013 (PDT)
It's true for C++ standard library, Function arguments [res.on.arguments]. Quotes: "implementation may assume", "impelemtation is free to optimize". (User, of course, can provide correct behaviour by implementing check in custom 'operator=(&&)') Ruslo 02:20, 25 August 2013 (PDT)
How about: "in stl containers case, result is implementation dependent and not guarantee to be correct"? I've file a bug to libc++ to support debug check in this situation, hope this gave some clarification Ruslo 02:20, 25 August 2013 (PDT)
Discussion of self-move-assignment, if one is necessary, really belongs to move assignment operator. --Cubbi 08:31, 25 August 2013 (PDT)
Agreed. --Nate 11:09, 25 August 2013 (PDT)
Ok, I've write here Ruslo 13:56, 25 August 2013 (PDT)

Possible output errors in the example, see here for the more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcc8a (talkcontribs)

Moved-from objects are in a valid but unspecified state. A valid way to implement move assignment is swap. T. Canens (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2015 (PDT)
Actually, I take that back. Due to allocator propagation requirements, swap won't work as an implementation of move assignment for std::strings in the general case. We should find an example where swap is actually valid. T. Canens (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2016 (PST)
Huh, you're right. Looks like gcc realized that, too, in september. --Cubbi (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2016 (PST)
Well, LWG only realized this last year :) T. Canens (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2016 (PST)