Copy constructor in D. Why it is necessary to have it.

[Bent Rasmussen]

You have a procedural mind, Bearophile ;-)

"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS at lycos.com> skrev i meddelelsen 
news:gbvmgr$19tu$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Walter Bright:
>> We've been informally calling it "deepdup". The advantage of that is it
>> is fairly hard to misinterpret. Nobody liked my ".dupofearl" idea.
>
> I agree that given the "dup", then then meaning of "deepdup" can be 
> understood much better than "clone".
>
> On the other hand there are some name changes that can improve D2:
> 1) invariant  =>  immutable
> 2) .length  =>  .size
> 3) .dup  =>  .copy
> 4) .deepdup  =>  deepcopy
>
> 1 and 2) are surely improvements.
>
> 3) "dup" is used quite commonly, so it deserves a short name, but "copy" 
> is just one character longer, it isn't an abbreviation, and it's more 
> readable, so I think it's not bad.
>
> And 4) is just the natural extension of the name 3). It doesn't deserve a 
> very short name because it's not used often, so it's better to make it as 
> readable as possible.
>
> Bye,
> bearophile