I would be curious about the rationale behind this. Move semantics are a clear win in many situations, and I don't see any obvious pitfalls associated with them. I am curious especially about mere std::move; I'm aware that using rvalue references directly can be a bit confusing initially, and it makes sense to reduce their use.
Stuff like this makes me really regret being a C++ developer. Companies and projects are adopting new features at a glacial pace and yet the programming world is still moving forward and it feels like despite the best efforts of the committee and the compiler teams C++ is doomed to continue being a 'legacy language' as companies either continue migrating to C# or sticking with C++98.
Instead of living with regret, why not ask yourself what kind of software you want to be writing and what kind of problems you want to be solving? Some software should be migrated to C# and Java. On the other hand, when it comes to runtime performance, memory footprint, and compiler and runtime availability, nothing matches (or even comes close yet) to C/C++.
I would be so happy if that comittee started removing features instead of adding them. Guidelines like that are just a way of dealing with all the complexity they introduced to C++ over the years.
The definitive introduction to C++11 is probably 'C++ Primer 5th edition'. It covers stuff other than the new features but everything is described as it should be done in C++11/14.
[+] [-] heycam|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jcmakon|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjmlp|11 years ago|reply
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2014/08/21/c-11-14-fe...
Last time I checked, outside most C++ compilers were still catching up with C++11.
There are more C++ compilers out there than just clang and gcc. Even those aren't 100% compliant at library level, if I am not mistaken.
[+] [-] jesuslop|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nhaehnle|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] femngi|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CountSessine|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kgabis|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xpaulbettsx|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ekm2|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] femngi|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjmlp|11 years ago|reply