Article about problems & suggestions for D 2.0

[Walter Bright]

On 8/29/2011 2:22 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> Certainly, for the common case, adding move constructors is a needless
> complication, and I'd _very_ leery of the ramifications of the compiler not
> being able to rely on a move having the bits stay absolutely identical (and a
> move constructor would make it possible for the struct's state to change
> completely instead of really being a move). It's not necessarily completely
> unreasonable, but you appear to have found what I would expect to be a _very_
> abnormal use-case.

Andrei and I have talked about adding move constructors, but I agree with you 
that it really seems to be a tar pit we'd really like to avoid. C++ has a lot of 
subtle problems caused by supporting this, not the least of which is efficiency 
problems.