> > No, an incomplete move constructor - it doesn't invalidate the moved-from
> > object, resulting in the crash.
>
> So why have a move constructor at all?!
>
> A move constructor that promises to behave like a copy constructor is
> misleading at best.
Ah! I now looked at the final code. That make sense.
> > No, an incomplete move constructor - it doesn't invalidate the moved-from
> > object, resulting in the crash.
>
> So why have a move constructor at all?!
>
> A move constructor that promises to behave like a copy constructor is
> misleading at best.
Ah! I now looked at the final code. That make sense.