Re: Better handling of noncopyable objects and objects with this(this)

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 15:45:11 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 6/1/15 5:50 AM, "Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?= 
<schue...@gmx.net>" wrote:
On Monday, 1 June 2015 at 04:43:20 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
FYI I just created 
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14638 as
one of possibly several language enhancements to improve 
usability of
noncopyable types (most allocators are not copyable) and to 
enhance
performance of objects that define this(this). -- Andrei

What do "static use" and "dynamic use" mean here?

static = as you read the code
dynamic = as you run the code

Also, object with destructors need to have more restrictions:

    S {
        ~this();
    }

    void foo() {
        S s;
        if(condition)
            bar(s);
        // <- should we run the destructor here?
    }

This can either be solved by making such cases non-eligible, 
or by
"remembering" whether an object was moved using a hidden 
boolean
variable. AFAIK the latter is incidentally the solution Rust 
chose.

This has been solved, we have move which obliterates the source 
with .init.

Huh? What does that have to do with the current topic?

The question is not what should happen when someone does a 
conditional _explicit_ move, but whether a move should be done 
_implicitly_ by the compiler given the above constellation, and 
how it deals with the destructor if yes.