Discussion: Rvalue refs and a Move construtor for D

[Suleyman]

On Sunday, 8 September 2019 at 03:21:06 UTC, Manu wrote:
> Actually, why doesn't it naturally work with pointers?
> The same way `scope` applied to pointers or ref's or anything 
> with
> references, shouldn't `@rvalue` have the same attribution 
> semantics as
> `scope` for instance?
> I guess you're right; if it didn't naturally apply to pointers 
> the
> same way `scope` does, it would be a weird kind of edge case.
> The application of the attribute should behave the same as 
> `scope`.

I didn't mean it should be like scope. I meant it should be like 
const an shared. For example the address of an rvalue ref is 
pointer to an rvalue type `is(typeof(&arg) == rvalue(S)*)` this 
way rvalueness is preserved when the adress is taken, thus you 
can have something like `rvalue(S)***`. Dereferencing such such 
pointers returns an rvalue ref thus automatically calls the move 
constructor instead of the copy constructor.