C++ Unified Assignment Operator move-semantics

EDIT: solved see comments --don't know how to mark as solved with out an answer.

After watching a Channel 9 video on Perfect Forwarding / Move semantics in c++0x i was some what led into believing this was a good way to write the new assignment operators.

#include <string>
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>

struct my_type 
{
    my_type(std::string name_)
            :    name(name_)
            {}

    my_type(const my_type&)=default;

    my_type(my_type&& other)
    {
            this->swap(other);
    }

    my_type &operator=(my_type other)
    {
            swap(other);
            return *this;
    }

    void swap(my_type &other)
    {
            name.swap(other.name);
    }

private:
    std::string name;
    void operator=(const my_type&)=delete;  
    void operator=(my_type&&)=delete;
};


int main()
{
    my_type t("hello world");
    my_type t1("foo bar");
    t=t1;
    t=std::move(t1);
}

This should allow both r-values and const& s to assigned to it. By constructing a new object with the appropriate constructor and then swapping the contents with *this. This seems sound to me as no data is copied more than it need to be. And pointer arithmetic is cheap.

However my compiler disagrees. (g++ 4.6) And I get these error.

copyconsttest.cpp: In function ‘int main()’:
copyconsttest.cpp:40:4: error: ambiguous overload for ‘operator=’ in ‘t = t1’
copyconsttest.cpp:40:4: note: candidates are:
copyconsttest.cpp:18:11: note: my_type& my_type::operator=(my_type)
copyconsttest.cpp:30:11: note: my_type& my_type::operator=(const my_type&) <deleted>
copyconsttest.cpp:31:11: note: my_type& my_type::operator=(my_type&&) <near match>
copyconsttest.cpp:31:11: note:   no known conversion for argument 1 from ‘my_type’ to ‘my_type&&’
copyconsttest.cpp:41:16: error: ambiguous overload for ‘operator=’ in ‘t = std::move [with _Tp = my_type&, typename std::remove_reference< <template-parameter-1-1> >::type = my_type]((* & t1))’
copyconsttest.cpp:41:16: note: candidates are:
copyconsttest.cpp:18:11: note: my_type& my_type::operator=(my_type)
copyconsttest.cpp:30:11: note: my_type& my_type::operator=(const my_type&) <deleted>
copyconsttest.cpp:31:11: note: my_type& my_type::operator=(my_type&&) <deleted>

Am I doing something wrong? Is this bad practice (I don't think there is way of testing whether you are self assigning)? Is the compiler just not ready yet?

Thanks

Solution

Be very leery of the copy/swap assignment idiom. It can be sub-optimal, especially when applied without careful analysis. Even if you need strong exception safety for the assignment operator, that functionality can be otherwise obtained.

For your example I recommend:

struct my_type 
{
    my_type(std::string name_)
            :    name(std::move(name_))
            {}

    void swap(my_type &other)
    {
            name.swap(other.name);
    }

private:
    std::string name;
};

This will get you implicit copy and move semantics which forward to std::string's copy and move members. And the author of std::string knows best how to get those operations done.

If your compiler does not yet support implicit move generation, but does support defaulted special members, you can do this instead:

struct my_type 
{
    my_type(std::string name_)
            :    name(std::move(name_))
            {}

    my_type(const mytype&) = default;
    my_type& operator=(const mytype&) = default;
    my_type(mytype&&) = default;
    my_type& operator=(mytype&&) = default;

    void swap(my_type &other)
    {
            name.swap(other.name);
    }

private:
    std::string name;
};

You may also choose to do the above if you simply want to be explicit about your special members.

If you're dealing with a compiler that does not yet support defaulted special members (or implicit move members), then you can explicitly supply what the compiler should eventually default when it becomes fully C++11 conforming:

struct my_type 
{
    my_type(std::string name_)
            :    name(std::move(name_))
            {}

    my_type(const mytype& other)
        : name(other.name) {}
    my_type& operator=(const mytype& other)
    {
        name = other.name;
        return *this;
    }
    my_type(mytype&& other)
        : name(std::move(other.name)) {}
    my_type& operator=(mytype&& other)
    {
        name = std::move(other.name);
        return *this;
    }

    void swap(my_type &other)
    {
            name.swap(other.name);
    }

private:
    std::string name;
};

If you really need strong exception safety for assignment, design it once and be explicit about it (edit to include suggestion by Luc Danton):

template <class C>
typename std::enable_if
<
    std::is_nothrow_move_assignable<C>::value,
    C&
>::type
strong_assign(C& c, C other)
{
    c = std::move(other);
    return c;
}

template <class C>
typename std::enable_if
<
    !std::is_nothrow_move_assignable<C>::value,
    C&
>::type
strong_assign(C& c, C other)
{
    using std::swap;
    static_assert(std::is_nothrow_swappable_v<C>,  // C++17 only
                  "Not safe if you move other into this function");
    swap(c, other);
    return c;
}

Now your clients can choose between efficiency (my type::operator=), or strong exception safety using strong_assign.