Move Constructor Syntax

[Walter Bright]

On 10/8/2024 11:54 PM, Manu wrote:
> Hmmmm. Well, that's not and never was a copy constructor...

Well, it is. I don't recall when or why it was included in D.


> so are we required to accept that that was ever correct code?

Yes. I'm not willing to endure the legions of people saying I broke their code, 
and the fix for them is not obvious. The way some people use D is terrifyingly 
(to me) over-complicated with templates and aliases and trampolines and 
forwards, etc.

So I embarked on "how can I make this as simple and understandable as possible".


> What kind of problem is a result of copy constructors not having an identifier?

Being unable to tell if `this(S)` is a copy constructor or not without semantic 
analysis.

BTW, with the prototype implementation of move constructors, move constructors 
get a separate identifier, `__moveCtor`, so it is usable from system code.

The way the symbol table works, and all the overloads and templates, attempting 
to search all the `__ctor` functions looking for the move constructor is very 
inefficient.

BTW, every reply you make starts a separate subthread. Can you please fix that?