Because it's non-standard

It looks like it would be equivalent to uninitialized_copy with make_move_iterator, not so useful then.

(In reply to comment #2)
> It looks like it would be equivalent to uninitialized_copy with
> make_move_iterator, not so useful then.

This makes sense, but not so obvious for novices in C++11.

If continuing in this vein, then std::move() can be substituted by std::copy() with input iterator wrapped into make_move_iterator(). Then std::move() is not so useful :)

Marc gave you an important practical advice and rationale, but as matter of principle is more important that the function is *non standard*, really if you use that you are *outside* the new C++11 Standard, is that clear? And the name isn't uglified thus even if we wanted we could not add it and remain conforming. This issue is invalid.

(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > It looks like it would be equivalent to uninitialized_copy with
> > make_move_iterator, not so useful then.
> 
> This makes sense, but not so obvious for novices in C++11.

I don't think novices should use anything with "uninitialized" in the name. Notice that very few functions on iterators have a move version. vector::insert doesn't come with a move_insert counterpart.

> If continuing in this vein, then std::move() can be substituted by std::copy()
> with input iterator wrapped into make_move_iterator().

True, although there can be subtle differences for input iterators where the reference type is not a reference to the value_type (there's a DR about that).

> Then std::move() is not so useful :)

Indeed. The standard tries to keep a balance, and I guess move was considered common enough to deserve its own interface, but could easily have been removed.

Note that I don't think gcc's bugzilla is the best place for such discussions...