Ruling out arbitrary cost copy construction?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 10/29/10 12:15 CDT, dsimcha wrote:
> == Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org)'s
>
>> Any tie-breaking arguments, I'm all ears.
>> Andrei
>
> Uh...How about that if people want C++, they know where to find it?  I think
> familiarity to C++ programmers is The Wrong Reason (TM) to allow arbitrary cost
> copy construction.  Furthermore, I don't see crufty old C++ programmers as being
> more important to D than people from other backgrounds.  I see D users coming from
> a variety of backgrounds:
>
> 1.  Crufty old C/C++ programmers.
>
> 2.  People who like dynamic languages but need more speed and ability to do
> low-level work.  D is about the most flexible
> close-to-the-metal/efficient/statically typed language out there.
>
> 3.  Java/C# programmers who want a language that isn't absurdly verbose.
>
> 4.  New programmers who don't have much already invested in any other language and
> want something advanced, modern and w/o tons of legacy cruft.
>
> The first **may** want eager copying.  The latter three almost certainly won't.

Not all C++ programmers are crufty and old :o). Anyhow, there are other 
advantages to arbitrary cost copy construction, as I specified. For what 
it's worth, if eliminating it made things overall easier, C++ 
programmers would have loved it. It's the liabilities I'm worried about.

Andrei