Can I express a function that consumes an object? Meaning that its destructor is not run on the moved-from object?

Like the proposed library function trivially_locate_at itself?

template <class T>
T* trivially_relocate_at(T* dst, T* src);

Naively, if the library authors can, so should I.

Problem: Where is the magic sauce? That function signature does not convey that it effectively destructs an object at src, or the reverse problem, that it effectively constructs an object at dst.

I suspect the answer is no: The few examples I have found are avoiding it by doing manual memory management with placement-new and std::destroy_at.

Reason for asking: I would like to propose what seems missing: Two new pointer qualifiers to express giving and taking ownership. If you can excuse my reuse of the new and delete keywords for a moment (it doesn't have to be those):

template <class T>
T* trivially_relocate_at(new T* dst, delete T* src);

This is not about optimizing C++, but salvaging it: In order to have static lifetime analysis (akin to Rust) in C and/or C++, I see no way around adding an ability to express static ownership transfer.