DIP 1018--The Copy Constructor--Community Review Round 1

Boris-Barboris ismailsiege at gmail.com
Sat Jan 5 14:39:06 UTC 2019


On Saturday, 5 January 2019 at 14:16:41 UTC, RazvanN wrote:
> I think that the discussion should transcend feelings and stick 
> to what can be done.

That feeling is coming from reason I highlighted in my original 
post.
"Can be done" is not enough, "should it be done?" is just as 
important.

> I think that discussing whether const should be transitive or 
> not is beyond the scope of this DIP.

I think no DIP should ever be viewed in isolation. The is no DIP 
scope. There is one, unified scope of language evolution. All 
concurrent DIPs and ideas must be accounted for.

> But the opMove DIP proposes a different syntax: 
> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/109/files#diff-50c61cb5afd3ffe27ddb9c5279fd9fc4R205

Yes, I meant I'm not a fan of that different syntax. Postblit and 
opPostMove should be merged into one move constructor call if 
it's defined IMO.

> Since the copy constructor can also be used as a normal 
> constructor (calling it explicitly), then there might be 
> situations where you would need the extra parameters.

Why would you mentioned it anywhere though? It's already 
implemented, we have such constructors. What does it have to do 
with copy constructor, besides the first argument?




More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list