Coming back, Unique, opDot and whatever else

[Stanislav Blinov]

On Friday, 17 January 2014 at 06:25:53 UTC, qznc wrote:

> Improving Phobos code by filling in the blanks is usually a 
> good idea and a good learning experience as well.

Oh, I wasn't proposing to stick that into Phobos, not in its 
current state. I'm not that arrogant :) Even given that I resolve 
all the TODOs that are currently there, it'd need a lot of 
discussion beforehand to even be proposed.

> Changing an interface in Phobos is a big deal and should be 
> thoroughly justified. Does it break backwards compatibility? 
> Why is it necessary?

Yes, it does. It disallows things like Unique!Car shiny = new 
Lamborghini(), which are possible in std Unique and are analagous 
to Unique!Car dubious = 
createCarAndSneakilySaveLotsOfReferencesToIt().
Initialization is completely taken over by createUnique(), which 
is basically a non-member implementation of this(Args...)(Args 
args) (commented out in typecons).

Of course, Unique can not prevent the type itself to advertise 
aliases all over the application, but that's something that can't 
be enforced anyway.

Also, its type support is currently very limited (std Unique can 
have just about anything that can be new'ed), but that's 
temporary, I'll be extending that.

Other than these, I can't think of any other friction with 
current implementation. Though I'd have to write tests to be sure.

> (btw moving to .learn is not possible, unfortunately)

:(