DIP 1040

[Timon Gehr]

On 7/19/24 00:09, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> Either way, I don't see why the callee would care whether a move had
> occurred or not. The function is given a value, and it operates on it. It's
> guaranteed to be owned by the function being called by virtue of the fact
> that it's not passed by ref. It's the caller that's going to care whether a
> move takes place, and that can be guaranteed by using an explicit move.

A primary use case would be forcing a move without the option of getting 
it wrong. I.e., the guaranteed move is a feature that the callee exposes 
to the caller.

I really dislike `.init` for some use cases. This is just null pointers.