Complain about how confusing move() is

[cjbacchus]

No description provided.

[PetrilloAtWork]

My idea was that this would be a suggestion for people lazily wondering "what do I do?". The motivation of the recommendation is harder to understand than the constant reference one, but it's more efficient too.
Although there is still debate and there are notable protesters (sorry, I couldn't find a certain page supporting an opposite view).
I would like other opinions on this. I do commit to make a more detailed explanation if we keep it (that would land in the famous "part II" with details for the inquisitive reader).

---

For example, why not pass initialHits as a reference above and then not move it?

In my understanding, in that situation passing a temporary value copies it at assignment or construction time:

struct Data {
  std::vector<int> values;
  Data(std::vector<int> const& v): values{ v } {}
};

std::vector<int> initData;
Data data1 { initData };
Data data2 { std::vector<int>{} };

Here data1 gets a copy of initData, and data2 gets a copy of std::vector<int>{} (both via values{ v }).

Instead:

struct Data {
  std::vector<int> values;
  Data(std::vector<int> v): values{ std::move(v) } {}
};

std::vector<int> initData;
Data data1 { initData };
Data data2 { std::vector<int>{} };

Here data1 gets a copy (via std::vector<int> v) + move of initData (via values{ std::move(v) }), and data2 gets a move of std::vector<int>{} (via values{ std::move(v) }).