NoQ added a comment. In D54560#1302051 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D54560#1302051>, @MTC wrote:
> > The "moved-from" terminology we adopt here still feels a bit weird to me, > > but i don't have a better suggestion, so i just removed the single-quotes > > so that to at least feel proud about what we have. > > I am personally fine with this terminology, this checker corresponds to the > cert rule **EXP63-CPP. Do not rely on the value of a moved-from object**, and > **moved from** is also used in many places in CppCoreGuidelines. Double-checked - this terminology does indeed come from the Standard: **15.5.5.15 Moved-from state of library types [lib.types.movedfrom]** 1 Objects of types defined in the C++ standard library may be moved from (10.3.4.2). Move operations may be explicitly specified or implicitly generated. Unless otherwise specified, such moved-from objects shall be placed in a valid but unspecified state. CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D54560/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D54560 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
