D's equivalent to C++'s std::move?

[Matt Elkins via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 2 February 2016 at 22:36:22 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
> Have you used something similar before? Is this a correct 
> approach to this problem?

This reminds me of C++ prior to C++11; there were libraries with 
whole sets of data structures intended to make move-like 
semantics work. While functional (C++ certainly did fine with it 
for many years), it's not ideal. That said, I don't know a better 
solution. For my resource handles, I am expanding the array and 
then assigning the handle in to the new slots, but that's only 
acceptable because I happen to know my assignments are cheap. And 
even then, it is a bit ugly.

Thus far in my (admittedly short) explorations of D, this has 
been my only major gripe. It feels like a significant step down 
from C++, but that significance is probably unique to my use case 
-- the particular project I am working with happens to use a lot 
of non-memory, non-copyable (but movable) resources. In some of 
the projects I do at work, I would hardly notice this.

This [apparent] lack of clean move semantics is one of only a 
handful of things keeping me from wholeheartedly converting to D, 
and proselytizing the gospel to my coworkers (most of the other 
issues are transient, like compiler bugs). Everything else in D 
has been pretty awesome so far, and I definitely plan on 
continuing to use it for my pet projects for the time being :).

Anecdote: just after porting one of my C++ classes to D, I 
realized that without sacrificing generality, performance, or 
readability I had cut away something like 1/3 of the code, 
primarily from the cleaner syntax (this actually increased 
readability). I know D isn't _just_ "cleaner C++", but it sure is 
cleaner than C++!