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"?
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.