On 2020-07-18 2:30 PM, Bob Bridges wrote:
Am I missing something obvious, here? In what computer language(s) is a move
not actually a copy? And how?
Languages which support Linear/Affine type systems where there can only
be one instance of a object for which move operations transfer ownership
from the sender to the receiver,
invalidating the sender. C++ and Rust spring to mind as well as many
functional programming languages. Rust strongly enforces ownership, C++
does not but most modern code implement
move semantics as it's a requirement of the C++ standard library.
---
Bob Bridges, robhbrid...@gmail.com, cell 336 382-7313
/* In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by
everyone, something that no one ever knew before....in poetry, it's the exact
opposite. -Paul Dirac */
-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of David Crayford
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 00:53
I beg to differ! For the programming languages I code in use there is a
huge difference between copy and move semantics.
--- On 2020-07-17 11:12 AM, Tony Thigpen wrote:
From the start, MOVE in the programming world has been equated to what
you are calling a COPY.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
