For example, stdlibc++ has the following: unique_lock& operator=(unique_lock&& __u) { if(_M_owns)
Consider the case when \"whole\" objects with move semantics enabled are returned from functions, as with std::basic_string<>:
How can I check whether my compiler supports rvalue references or not? Is there a standard preprocessor macro, or do different compilers have different macros? Ideally, I would want to write this:
During the implementation of the move constructor of a toy class, I noticed a pattern: array2D(array2D&& that)
Lets say we have the following code: std::vector<int> f() { std::vector<int> y; ... return y; }
std::sort swaps elements by using std::swap, which in turn uses the copy constructor and assignment operators, guaranteeing that you get correct semantics when exchanging the values.
I\'ve been studying rvalue references lately and came to a conclusion that it\'s quite advantageous t开发者_如何学运维o use pass-by-value everywhere where complete copy of an object will be made (for
Consider the following function: Foo foo(Foo x) { return x; } Will return x invoke the copy constructor or the move constructor? (Let\'s leave NRVO aside here.)
Is there a reason when a function should return a RValue Reference? A t开发者_开发技巧echnique, or trick, or an idiom or pattern?
Is the following snipplet correct for un-defining all otherwise generated methods and constructors for a class?