mv-semantic | use cases rather few

I think the use case for mv-constructs is tricky. In many simple contexts mv-constructs actually don’t work.

Justification for introducing mv-semantic is clearest in one scenario — a short-lived but complex stack object is passed by value into a function. The argument object is a temp copy — unnecessary.

Note the data type should be a complex type like containers (including string), not an int. In fact, as explained in the post on “keywords”, there’s usually a pointer field and allocation.

Other use cases are slightly more complex, and the justification is weaker.

Q: [[c++standard library]] P21 says ANY nontrivial class should provide a mv ctor AND a mv-assignment. Why? (We assume there’s pointer field and allocation involved if no mv-semantics.)
%%A: To avoid making temp copies when inserting into container. I think vector relocation also benefits from mv-ctor

[[c++forTheImpatient]] P640 shows that sorting a vector of strings can benefit from mv-semantic. Swapping 2 elements in the vector requires a pointer swap rather than a copying strings

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s