Taking a copy of an object

[kris]

Derek Parnell wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:30:15 -0400, Mikola Lysenko wrote:
> 
> 
>>Adding a virtual deep copy method to Object is a bad idea.
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
>>A different solution is to require each type to explicitly state if it 
>>supports deep-copies at compile time.
> 
> ...
>  
> 
>>If everyone adheres to this convention, the following templates to allow
>>anyone to test if a type is clonable at compile time - and easily perform
>>a clone.  
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
>>For completeness, there is also a shallow copy or 'dup'
>>operation using the same technique.
> 
> 
> Yes. This is most of what I was trying to get across. 
> 
> The only problem is the phrase "If everyone adheres to this convention".
> That will never happen, people being as they are. This is why I'd like
> these capabilities to be supported by the compiler via the use of operators
> that invoke the associated 'op' function.


Yes; although "we", as a group, /could/ commandeer the opDup() and 
opClone() method-names ourselves ~ it's surprising how having the 
op-prefix can persuade people to comply with a convention, especially 
when there's some potential that the compiler may catch up later :)

If we did start using these names, how might it conflict? Would opDup 
potentially mean something different in the future? Or opClone? What 
doth Walter say?