DIP 1040

[Timon Gehr]

On 7/14/24 12:39, Timon Gehr wrote:
> ...
> 
> For the record: I am on board with DIP1040, except for the error-prone 
> design of destructor elision in move constructors and move assignment 
> operators. I think should be explicit.
> 

Of course, even more can be done to make move semantics an even better 
experience in D, but DIP1040 is a good basis. For example, I would want:

- an annotation that ensures a certain use of a variable is a move. 
(This is important given that the analysis in DIP1040 will need to be 
incomplete, so it is good to be able to confirm it works where it matters.)

- a parameter storage class that enforces the parameter was moved.

However, those can be pretty easily built on top of DIP1040. (And they 
may even be the same feature.)