Comment by dathinab

yes

std::move tells the devs and the compiler that you _intend_ the value to be moved

sadly that isn't reflected well in it's implementation as it will "silently" degrade even if it isn't a "move" (1)

A `std::move` which fails to compile if it can't be a move(1) it would not have this issues.

But it has other issues, mainly wrt. library design especially related to templates/generics, which probably(?) need a `std::move` which works like the current one. I think someone else in this comment section already argued that one issue with modern C++ is too much focusing on the complicated/template/const library design by experts case compared to the "day to day" usage by non experts.

(1): There is a bit of gray area in what in rust would be Copy types, for simplicity we can ignore them in this hypothetical argument about an alternative std::move design.