![User banner](https://media.hachyderm.io/accounts/headers/109/381/402/362/210/819/original/9470756a1edfe40e.jpg)
![DanielaKEngert](https://media.hachyderm.io/accounts/avatars/109/381/402/362/210/819/original/6f5d8fd3e6bc4620.png?format=webp&thumbnail=64)
C++ nerd, WG21, INFJ, electrical engineer, she/her, science connoisseur, jazz addict @DanielaKEngert
@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.
@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).
@rmam Older versions of the C++ standard are *withdrawn*.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.