http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11202
[email protected] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #1 from [email protected] 2013-10-09 00:52:12 PDT --- Hum... the issue is that T simply doesn't care about S's opAssign: It generates its own opAssign via "postblit-copy-move" (of all of T at once I mean). This isn't strictly *wrong*, its just a pretty dirty way of doing things, and I'm pretty sure it's inefficient, and it definitly defeats the purpose of having an opAssign to begin with. It *is* the only way to provide *strong* exception guarantees though, for a compiler generated elaborate opAssign, in case one of the member's opAssign throws. *Should* we guarantee strong exception safety though? I'm unsure. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
