DIP 1014--Hooking D's struct move semantics--Final Review

[Shachar Shemesh]

On 29/06/18 15:35, aliak wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 June 2018 at 07:24:05 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 27 June 2018 at 07:13:14 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance for your participation.
>>
>> For those of you using the NNTP or mailing list interfaces, this is 
>> the thread to respond in. Thanks!
> 
> Alo!
> 
> This is great!
> 
> Just a clarification about the last paragraph phrasing
> 
> The last line: "We can further reduce this problem by calling the 
> function opPostMove." seemed to imply that an alternate name to 
> opPostMove would be mentioned, but am I correct in understanding that it 
> is just saying that "naming this second function as op* will keep code 
> breakage to a minimum" ?

This is a left over from a previous draft, where the operator was called 
"opMove". It should be removed.

> Also, what should happen if someone defines an opPostMove for a class. 
> Compile error or? Should something about that be mentioned?

I think nothing should happen. The function would be ignored, just like 
it is today. I am open to hear other ideas, however.

I'm not sure whether it should be explicitly mentioned or not.

Shachar