Discussion: Rvalue refs and a Move construtor for D

[a11e99z]

On Wednesday, 4 September 2019 at 08:21:05 UTC, Suleyman wrote:
> 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

I want to tell something to u, Manu, WB... "u do something wrong 
with lang"

let's see C++ copy constructor
> Point( const Point& rhs ) { ... } // const ref to A. that all

let's D copy constructor
> this( ref return scope const Point rhs ) { ... } // const.. ref 
> to.. WTF?

I understand that u can explain every word in such construction 
but
for others it looks like "3.14dec" - u see here PI and 
something.. decimal? why? what is this mean?
ok. ask any Russian friend/familiar, he will tell u that this 
means "big fucked up" in rude form. wait! what?! how?!
and same way I read/see copy constructors in D.
ok. show such construction to somebody who knows about copy 
constructors but not D guru and ask him what does he think about 
it?

another side is move constructor. C++ again:
> Data( Data&& rhs ) { ... } // even less chars than for copy.
          // && - either logical AND or move semantics. u can't 
mistake.
D?
> this( @rvalue Data rhs ) @move { ... }
3.14dec!
it even doesn't like to copy constructor - related entities.

most people I think come to D from C++ or they tried C++ and 
faced with something incomprehensible, ambiguous, complex.
(it seems to me that the templates are too sophisticated, and in 
D templates are understandable with constraints it even easier.)
and they come to D cuz many people said on any forums "try to use 
D that has advantages over <lang>".
and people try to write easy entity like "Point" and see.. this - 
copy/move..
it looks like fraud.
its not easy to understand, u just can not step into D by soft 
step, u should read half specification to understand clear, 
simple things that is not clear and looks not simple.

please hold things easy. I don't know how, but keep a easy way.