Move Constructor Syntax

[Mike Shah]

On Sunday, 6 October 2024 at 05:40:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 10/5/2024 9:14 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> What about .opMove?
>
> I was thinking of using that for the move version of opAssign.

Perhaps opAssignMove? Slightly less ambiguous and consistent in 
syntax for move assignment operator.

I agree a unique constructor is the way to go for grepping code.

My vote is option 1 or 3, with some thought process below.


'=this(S)' probably the cleanest, but might confuse beginners 
with opEquals, opAssign, or capture syntax in C++. I imagine 
easiest to implement/maintain in compiler though. Still looks 
pretty good overall and we're use to the ~ mark on front of 
destructors.

'this(=S)' Wonder if this opens doors for other symbols to appear 
in parameters and have meaning? Are there other features we 
foresee where we'd want to have symbol prefixes? Probably best to 
avoid, as this would look better with @move, but that opens more 
paths toward attribute soup imo.

'->this(S)' conveys what is going on(which I like -- I switched 
the direction of the arrows). Easily searchable, and C and C++ 
programmers are used to typing it (but with a different but 
otherwise clear meaning). Looks a tiny bit ugly though in the 
code.

With any if these strategies, it seems we will then have a __move 
or move type function otherwise ala std::move as I understand. 
That seems consistent to me overall (at least for the C++ side of 
my brain as I understand move semantics)