DIP49 - Define qualified postblit

Kenji Hara k.hara.pg at gmail.com
Mon Nov 11 20:30:49 PST 2013


2013/11/11 Daniel Davidson <nospam at spam.com>

> From this thread (http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.89.1383248384.9546.
> digitalmars-d-learn at 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?
>

1.5 years ago, I did asked to Andrei about the postbit issue.

<http://forum.dlang.org/thread/CAFDvkcvvL8GxHQB=Rw9pTm-uxOKzNGVQNDv9w5Os3SkQCc=DLQ@mail.gmail.com>
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/CAFDvkcvvL8GxHQB=Rw9pTm-uxOKzNGVQNDv9w5Os3SkQCc=DLQ@mail.gmail.com


Andrei had thought that the issue will be fixed by adding "copy
constructor" in D.
However I believed that the postblit concept would be able to improved
more. So I couldn't convince about his thought.

DIP49 is the final conclusion of my belief. I can say that copy constructor
is unnecessary in D.

Kenji Hara
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20131112/910320f1/attachment.html>


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list