DIP 1014

[Stanislav Blinov]

On Thursday, 4 October 2018 at 12:08:38 UTC, Shachar Shemesh 
wrote:

> 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 just name, but argument passing as well.

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

Because that syntax pertains specifically to construction, which 
is what a compiler move is; is not currently used by the language 
(the fact that the compiler doesn't error on it is an oversight); 
enforces calling convention.

>> 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.

Which is what I said in the very next sentence, so I'm not sure 
what your point is here. It's like we're having a discussion but 
we aren't at the same time.

>> 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".

Alright, let's get back to it after the weekend then.

> Like I said, I think there's a lot you're glossing over here 
> (such as backwards compatibility).

Backwards compatibility? With what, exactly? Non-existing 
explicit moves?