DIP 1014

[Shachar Shemesh]

On 04/10/18 13:43, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
>> * move the data as part of the call hook rather than before
>> * Use a different name and signature on the hook function
> 
> Yes, exactly.
> 

> 
> It would have to be special if you don't want to leave room for the 
> compiler implementors.

That's not how standards work. If you don't want compiler implementors 
to have a choice in the matter, you put MUST in the specs. Doing 
anything else is, by and large, considered harmful.

> The calling convention for particular types (i.e. 
> those that do have a move hook defined) would have to be enforced in 
> some way. See the neighbor thread wrt move semantics by kinke.

Two distinct things. Kinke was talking about how to pass a struct 
through the ABI. You are talking about special-casing a specific name.

Not to mention, your special case is to transform it to something you 
can *already* specify in the language. Why?

> Which is, however, not a reason to formalize it and make it a 
> requirement for an isolated specific case, such as this one, utilizing a 
> syntax that is currently not used by the language.

There is positively nothing in DIP 1014 that is "syntax not used by the 
language". Quite the contrary.

> As opposed to trying 
> to fit existing language semantics to something that the language didn't 
> seem to want to allow in the first place.

Formalize it as a suggestion, and we can discuss the "as opposed to". 
Like I said, I think there's a lot you're glossing over here (such as 
backwards compatibility).

Shachar