Move Constructor Syntax

[Timon Gehr]

On 10/17/24 15:11, Timon Gehr wrote:
> 
> 
>> Can you explain to me how every other function call isn't broken under 
>> the special-case-for-move-constructor solution?
> 
> Move semantics still needs a separate solution, but this thread is about 
> move constructors. Move constructors are not needed for move semantics, 
> they are needed to manually hook moves that involve a transfer of values 
> between different memory locations.

Maybe here part of your question was why special-casing move 
constructors solves the overload resolution issue? The issue is an 
implementation detail that no longer occurs when move constructor and 
copy constructor are not functions in the same overload set.

I think it is a nice side-effect that this problem is fixed, but it 
should not be the main motivation for special move constructor syntax.