Thanks for explaining!

@CoffeeBeforeArch

Жыл бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it! :^)

I don't know if anyone else would agree, but I think if they had better defined some of the rules they could've avoided even needing std::move. A lot of both C and C++ strikes me as being weakly thought out. Almost as if the standards committees either had no real world experience or forgot whatever they did have. Not that I'm saying there's a perfect language, and in fact C and C++ are both still the best languages to use for general purposes. But that particular aspect I dislike vehemently and it seems as if a few more recent languages have copied it. Anyhow, that's just my own personal musing, feel free to disagree.

@CoffeeBeforeArch

Жыл бұрын

I'd say just the fact that move semantics is still so widely misunderstood would indicate that there is a problem with the standard. I think destructive moves are an interesting and intuitive alternative, but haven't honestly given it too much thought. Cheers, --Nick

@filipj4377

Жыл бұрын

Can you be more specific? You're super welcome to suggest a better design instead of saying it's bad in general

@anon_y_mousse

Жыл бұрын

@@filipj4377 I doubt anyone from the committee would take any of my suggestions, and they aren't likely to see any of these posts, but Nick offered up one possible change that would be better. However, this is one case where I'd actually suggest extra syntax. Even something as simple as

@yoavmor9002

Ай бұрын

@@anon_y_mousse Isn't

@anon_y_mousse

Ай бұрын

@@yoavmor9002 You're right. What I was thinking of wouldn't work in standard C++ because statements that are bare comparisons aren't treated differently to their usage in conditionals. Even something like `int foo = 0, bar = 0; foo

I couldn't get through the video because 'std' does not stand for 'stud'. Either say S-T-D or 'standard'...

@8Trails50

11 ай бұрын

pretty lame reason to not get through the video