Why does C++ move semantics leave the source constructed?

Question

In C++11, "move semantics" was introduced, implemented via the two special members: move constructor and move assignment. Both of these operations leave the moved-from object constructed.

Wouldn't it have been better to leave the source in a destructed state? Isn't the only thing you can do with a moved-from object is destruct it anyway?

"Isn't the only thing you can do with a moved-from object is destruct it anyway?" Stylistically, yes. Technically, you may move another object into it. — edmz, Oct 31 '15 at 18:43

score 33 · Accepted Answer · edited May 23 '17 at 12:32

In the "universe of move operations" there are four possibilities:

target          source
  is            is left
----------------------------------------------------------
constructed <-- constructed  // C++11 -- move construction
constructed <-- destructed
assigned    <-- constructed  // C++11 -- move assignment
assigned    <-- destructed

Each of these operations is useful! std::vector<T>::insert alone could make use of the first three. Though note:

The source of the 2nd and 4th should not have automatic, static or thread storage duration. The storage duration of the source must be dynamic, else the compiler will call the destructor on the already destructed object. And no, the compiler can not (in general) track if an object has been moved-from:

X x1, x2;
if (sometimes)
{
    x1 = std::move(x2);
}
// Is x2 moved-from here?

The 2nd and 4th can be emulated by the 1st and 3rd respectively, by simply manually calling the destructor on the source after the operation.
The 1st and 3rd are crucial. Algorithms such as std::swap and std::sort regularly need both of these operations. These algorithms do not need to destruct any of their input objects — only change their values.

Armed with this knowledge, in the 2001-2002 time frame I focused my efforts on the two operations that left their source constructed because these two operations would have the largest (positive) impact on what was then C++98. I knew at the time that if I did not curtail the ambitions of this project, that it would never succeed. Even curtailed, it was borderline too-ambitious to succeed.

This curtailment is acknowledged in the original move semantics proposal under the section titled "Destructive move semantics".

In the end, we simply gave up on this as too much pain for not enough gain. However the current proposal does not prohibit destructive move semantics in the future. It could be done in addition to the non-destructive move semantics outlined in this proposal should someone wish to carry that torch.

For more details on what one can do with a moved-from object, see https://stackoverflow.com/a/7028318/576911

There is a C++1z proposal for a destructive move, motivated for nothrow issues. — Yakk - Adam Nevraumont, Nov 01 '15 at 17:26
@Yakk-AdamNevraumont do you have any links about this proposal? I want some details on the destructive move. — , Nov 30 '18 at 02:34
Howard, has there been any activity in recent years regarding destructive moves? — einpoklum, Jul 17 '20 at 19:20
Yes, but I have not been following it closely. But no activity exists without a paper. And all of the papers can be found here: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/ — Howard Hinnant, Jul 17 '20 at 19:27

Why does C++ move semantics leave the source constructed?

1 Answers1

Linked