Move Constructor Syntax

[Arafel]

On 16/10/24 2:43, Timon Gehr wrote:
> You are right assuming move constructors work as shown in DIP1040. 
> However, I think this design is not really workable, and I think Manu is 
> arguing from a position of assuming that the argument needs to remain 
> valid and will be destroyed by default.

Please excuse the question if it sounds too obvious (no irony here, I'm 
absolutely no expert in language design), but if the argument remains 
valid, and can be destroyed or not, doesn't it become a copy constructor?