Discussion: Rvalue refs and a Move construtor for D

[kinke]

On Friday, 6 September 2019 at 17:46:51 UTC, Manu wrote:
> It's relevant because the calling convention needs to be 
> defined, and
> it's volatile with respect to architecture.
> I don't think defining a custom ABI this way is a good path. 
> It's just
> different problems, and ABI problems are always bad problems.

It'd just make the D ABI conform to the C++ ABI wrt. passing 
non-PODs and large PODs by value, making the compilers adhere to 
the D spec *and* fixing C++ interop when passing such structs by 
value across language barriers, soomething you're surely looking 
forward too.
So the proposed ABI change (pass by ref instead of on stack & let 
callER destruct it) is the exact opposite of what you seem to see 
it as - it's streamlining the D ABI with C++. And it's orthogonal 
to the proposed move/forward intrinsics.