Why Can You Use `std::move` on Constant Objects in C ?

Why std::Move Can Be Used on Constant Objects

Generally, invoking std::move on a constant object would seem illogical since one expects to move, or modify, the object. However, in C 11, the use of std::move on constant objects is allowed.

To elaborate, std::move(cat) doesn't imply that the object is actually moved. Instead, it instructs the compiler to attempt the move. In cases where the class doesn't define a constructor that accepts a const reference to an rvalue (e.g., const Cat&&), the compiler will use the implicit const reference to an lvalue copy constructor, thus performing a safe copy instead.

Consider the following example:

struct Cat
{
   Cat(){}
   Cat(const Cat&) {std::cout <p>Even though std::move is used, the "COPY" message will be output, indicating that the object was copied instead of moved.</p><p>This behavior serves as a safety mechanism. If the copy constructor is disabled, the compiler will prompt the developer with an error message.</p><p>Furthermore, the bug mentioned in Scott Meyers' book 'Effective Modern C  ' is not a stability issue but a performance concern. It occurs when an implicit copy is performed when a move is intended, resulting in slower execution. Additionally, such bugs can occur even with non-const objects that lack move constructors.</p><p>Ultimately, allowing std::move to operate on constant objects provides flexibility. Developers retain the ability to explicitly construct objects from const rvalue references if desired.</p>

The above is the detailed content of Why Can You Use `std::move` on Constant Objects in C ?. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!