Thank you!

[Tejas]

On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 07:25:52 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 06:03:49 UTC, Tejas wrote:
>
>> Please allow this to compile.
>> `int` is value type, so it is fine to generate a temporary and 
>> allow the code to compile, right? A small test will reveal 
>> that `integer` is not being modified, so it's not **that** big 
>> of a deal, right?
>
> There's a big difference between int and struct: the latter is 
> an aggregate that may have member functions that have side 
> effects. For example:
>
> ```d
> getTemporary().doSomethingWithSideEffects();
> ```
>
> That's a valid pattern. You might then say that's a different 
> case than the assignment in your example, but `opAssign` for a 
> struct can be overridden.

And what I'm saying is that the user _doesn't_ know that they're 
getting a temporary unless they're aware that `struct`s are value 
types. And in this particular case, `opAssign` isn't defined.

So I personally think this warrants a warning at the very least.

I would have 0 problems if the function returned `S(_s)` instead 
of `_s`.

But this has gone on long enough for me. Maybe I'm the only one 
who finds it unintuitive. Fair enough.