Question

Consider the following:

class Example : boost::noncopyable
{
    HANDLE hExample;
public:
    Example()
    {
        hExample = InitializeHandle();
    }
    ~Example()
    {
        if (hExample == INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE)
        {
            return;
        }
        FreeHandle(hExample);
    }
    Example(Example && other)
        : hExample(other.hExample)
    {
        other.hExample = INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE;
    }
    Example& operator=(Example &&other)
    {
        std::swap(hExample, other.hExample); //?
        return *this;
    }
};

My thinking here is that the destructor will be running on “other” shortly, and as such I don’t have to implement my destructor logic again in the move assignment operator by using swap. But I’m not sure that’s a reasonable assumption. Would this be “okay”?

Answer 1

It should be ok, but it’s scarcely any better than the recommended technique of pass-by-value, in which case the move constructor would be used in this situation.