Move Constructor Syntax

[An]

On Monday, 14 October 2024 at 02:49:42 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 10/11/2024 8:44 AM, Manu wrote:
>> No that's wrong; this is EXACTLY the situation that move 
>> semantics exist to address. Move constructor like this should 
>> ACTUALLY BE a move constructor!
>
> But currently this(S) is an rvalue constructor, not a move 
> constructor. I've said this many times.
>
> Changing it would break existing code.

What about considering these syntax in new Edition that D is 
advocate for breaking changes?
`this(S)`, `this(ref S)`, `opAssign(S)`, `opAssign(ref S)`