C++17 Standard Published

Re:C++17 Standard Published by cominous on Tuesday December 05, 2017 @07:30PM (#15857518)

Its not std::move, but the complexity coming with it. Its a hassle applying move semantics correctly and there is not the one goto solution for simple things. Im not aware of a proposal to change that issue, but at least there should be better defaults.

This talk explains the pain quite well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNRju6_yn3o

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:C++17 Standard Published by repsilat on Tuesday December 05, 2017 @10:45PM (#15858300)

The amount of prayer I have put into RVO and moves happening "right"... As someone who isn't a C++ programmer, is there anything better than looking at annotated asm? Templating everything and trying it with something that isn't copyable? (Actually, would that even work with RVO?)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:C++17 Standard Published by jcelerier on Wednesday December 06, 2017 @05:49AM (#15860105)

> As someone who isn't a C++ programmer, is there anything better than looking at annotated asm

put a debug breakpoint in the move constructor and run your tests :p

[ Parent | on HN ]