Move Constructor Syntax

[Arafel]

On 16.10.24 12:39, ShadoLight wrote:
> unlike Walter/Timon/Razvan/Manu/<add others> I'm also no language design 
> guru but, in the above case:
> 
> - s1 is an lvalue, so shouldn't a copy ctor be implicitly generated by 
> the compiler (like in C++)..?
> - ... and be preferred in this case?
> 
> Something like:
> ```d
>      S s1, s2, s3;
>      s1 = S(1);       // this (int i)
>      s2 = S(s1);      // this (ref S s)  -> implicit
>          s3 = S(S(2));    // this (S s)
>          // ...and s1 is valid here
> ```

That would make sense, but this would in turn mean that the move 
constructor can never be invoked explicitly.

This might well be a design goal, but, in any case, I think that the 
explicit usage of constructors with a move constructor signature should 
be specified and clarified as part of the (eventual) DIP.

Also, it wouldn't change the fact that perhaps a struct might need at 
the same time a move constructor, a copy constructor, and a templated 
constructor that could overlap any or both of these.

I'd be all for considering all templated constructors as "normal", even 
if their signature in a given instantiation would match that of a copy 
or move constructor.