Discussion: Rvalue refs and a Move construtor for D

[kinke]

On Tuesday, 3 September 2019 at 23:51:43 UTC, Manu wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 2:45 PM Suleyman via Digitalmars-d 
> <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
>> I'm still demanding a use case for rvalue ref other than for 
>> move semantics.
>
> That's it; move semantics. That's not a minor thing...
> Why?

Because just detecting move-construction/-assignment/'argument 
moval' can get away with special identifiers for 
constructor/assignment operator or some special @move UDA, as 
Suleyman has proposed so far, instead of fully extending the 
language by rvalue refs, with mangling additions and new overload 
rules etc.

It's clear that this would restrict C++ interop, but that's the 
point - do we want to adopt the C++ approach fully, or keep 
things simple & tidy at the expense of not being able to 
represent C++ functions with rvalue refs (except for move 
constructor and assignment op)?