superfluous constructor ?

[Jonathan Wakely]

On 26 February 2012 15:38, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 26 February 2012 12:29, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> On 26 February 2012 03:21, Serge Pavlovsky wrote:
>>> hi
>>> in <functional>
>>>      function&
>>>      operator=(function&& __x)
>>>      {
>>> function(std::move(__x)).swap(*this);
>>> return *this;
>>>      }
>>> why not just __x.swap(*this); ?
>>>
>>
>> That would not destroy the current contents of *this immediately.
>
> See http://cplusplus.github.com/LWG/lwg-closed.html#675 and

Sorry, that first link should be
http://cplusplus.github.com/LWG/lwg-defects.html#675

> http://cplusplus.github.com/LWG/lwg-closed.html#910 for discussion
> regarding this point.  The target of a move operation is expected to
> be "cleared" so that destructors don't run late.