@lysdexic You claimed otherwise:
"
These std::move invocations are harmless, as they only cast objects to their rvalue reference.
"
If you were right, we wouldn't have the motivation to look at this in EWG.
@QuadriLiteral@lysdexic We've been looking at a paper just recently in Kona, where the author proposed to not penalize "unfortunate" uses of std::move. I think this is user friendly and you might imagine what I've been voting for.
@deadcream@rmam@addie@Pitri AFAICS, the number of *paid* compiler developers working on modules is larger in the Clang team (2) than in the MSVC team (1).
@Redkey@rmam I assume you're aware of the fact that there exists *only one* C++ standard at a time (C++20 today, C++23 later this year).
You probably mean
* using reduced feature sets
* compiling with non-conforming compilers
But this might sound less nice than "using an obsolete standard xyz". I'm totally aware why large swaths of the industry are stuck in the past for well-motivated reasons.
@heiseonline @astronomie
Sowas von grober Unfug - ich bin entsetzt darüber, daß jemand bei Verstand solch eine Idee überhaupt erwägen kann!
@lysdexic You claimed otherwise:
"
These std::move invocations are harmless, as they only cast objects to their rvalue reference.
"
If you were right, we wouldn't have the motivation to look at this in EWG.
@lysdexic I did.
@lysdexic @QuadriLiteral Eh, no. Really. Changing the value category disables RVO
@QuadriLiteral @lysdexic We've been looking at a paper just recently in Kona, where the author proposed to not penalize "unfortunate" uses of std::move. I think this is user friendly and you might imagine what I've been voting for.
@leviosa @lysdexic Yeah!
@deadcream @rmam @addie @Pitri AFAICS, the number of *paid* compiler developers working on modules is larger in the Clang team (2) than in the MSVC team (1).
@addie @rmam
" modules, as specified, were impossible for anyone to implement."
Let me fix: impossible for anyone except Clang and MSVC.
@rmam Older versions of the C++ standard are *withdrawn*.
@Redkey @rmam I assume you're aware of the fact that there exists *only one* C++ standard at a time (C++20 today, C++23 later this year).
You probably mean
* using reduced feature sets
* compiling with non-conforming compilers
But this might sound less nice than "using an obsolete standard xyz". I'm totally aware why large swaths of the industry are stuck in the past for well-motivated reasons.