Move Constructor Syntax

[Manu]

They initialise an S from another S... I'm not sure what you mean by "they
do different things"?

I've been wondering, why do you need to detect that a constructor is a copy
or move constructor? That concept seems like a big internal hack. Why do
normal overload selection semantics fail to determine the proper selection?
It's not clear why it's useful or important that copy and move constructors
are separate from all other constructors? They're not special; they just
happen to accept a self-type as an init argument... the only reason I can
think, is to identify the case where they're not present, and some
copy/move code must by synthesised in lieu... what else hangs off that
knowledge?

On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 at 16:11, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d <
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:

> On 10/10/2024 11:57 AM, Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole wrote:
> > For whatever reason, this feature just keeps giving me the nagging
> sensation
> > that something isn't right with the motivation.
>
>
> Something I overlooked. With the original plan,
> ```
> this(ref S) // copy constructor
> this(S) // move constructor
> ```
>
> Generally speaking, functions that are overloaded should do the same
> thing, just
> with different arguments. But the copy and move overloads do something
> quite
> different. This is difference is what has been causing me frustrating
> problems
> with implementing it.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20241011/e598a09b/attachment.htm>