DIP49 - Define qualified postblit

Daniel Davidson nospam at spam.com
Sun Nov 10 07:41:20 PST 2013


On Sunday, 10 November 2013 at 13:46:20 UTC, Kenji Hara wrote:
> 2013/11/10 Daniel Davidson <nospam at spam.com>
>
>> With this design, is there no need then for struct 
>> constructors - or would
>> this be orthogonal or in addition to those?
>>
>
>
> Currently "constructing unique object" is already supported.
>
> http://dlang.org/class#constructors
>> If the constructor can create unique object (e.g. if it is 
>> pure), the
> object can be implicitly convertible to any qualifiers.
>
> Indeed, the definition could be improved by using "initializing 
> unique
> expression" concept. But it is not directly related to the 
> DIP49. So the
> answer is "this is orthogonal".

 From this thread 
(http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.89.1383248384.9546.digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.com) 
I was under the impression that const/immutable and postblits 
don't mix. This DIP seems to be trying to address that. One of 
the potential workarounds to this issue was the idea of struct 
copy constructors. This is what I was referring to. With this 
proposal, is there still a need for struct copy constructors?


Thanks
Dan


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list