On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 01:42, Marc Glisse <marc.gli...@inria.fr> wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2018, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > > > I would rather not introduce a behavioral difference between us and > > libc++. > > Why not? There are already several, and it helps find bugs. Maybe you > could convince libc++ to change as well if you want to keep the behavior > the same?
What bugs? > > It does slightly concern me that some users might > > actually semantically expect a moved-from string to be empty, even > > though that's not guaranteed, although for non-SSO cases > > it *is* guaranteed. > > Is it? In debug mode, I'd be tempted to leave the string as "moved" (size > 5, short string so there is no allocation). Sigh. Apparently it isn't, because the standard doesn't bother placing complexity requirements on string constructors. Even so, I'd prefer string acting like vector, so that it will leave the source of a move in an empty state, rather than an unspecified state. Despite the standard not requiring that, it's more useful programmatically to have the empty state than the unspecified state, especially when the state is empty in some cases anyway.
