std::unique_ptr not behaving as expected in a class with overloaded operators
I'm working through a tutorial and I'm working with an scenario when using `std::unique_ptr` in a class that has overloaded operators... My class is supposed to manage a resource but when I try to move an instance of this class, it doesn't seem to transfer ownership as expected. Here's a simplified version of my class: ```cpp class Resource { public: Resource() { std::cout << "Resource acquired" << std::endl; } ~Resource() { std::cout << "Resource destroyed" << std::endl; } }; class MyClass { private: std::unique_ptr<Resource> res; public: MyClass() : res(std::make_unique<Resource>()) {} MyClass(MyClass&& other) noexcept : res(std::move(other.res)) {} MyClass& operator=(MyClass&& other) noexcept { if (this != &other) { res = std::move(other.res); } return *this; } }; ``` The scenario arises when I create two instances of `MyClass` and move one into the other: ```cpp MyClass a; MyClass b = std::move(a); ``` I expect that when `b` takes ownership of the resource from `a`, the destructor of the `Resource` class should not output "Resource destroyed" for `a`, since `a` should no longer own it. However, I get unexpected behavior where it appears the resource is being destroyed when `a` goes out of scope, as indicated by the output: ``` Resource acquired Resource destroyed Resource destroyed ``` I've tried to ensure that my move constructor and move assignment operator are implemented correctly, but I still see this double destruction. I've also added checks to ensure the pointers are `nullptr` after the move, but nothing seems to resolve the scenario. Could this be a question with the way I'm managing ownership in the class, or is there an scenario with how I've set up the move semantics? Any insights would be appreciated! This is part of a larger application I'm building. Any ideas what could be causing this? I'm working with Cpp in a Docker container on Linux. Thanks for any help you can provide! Is there a better approach?