Back on the original topic, Scott Meyers often says "std::move
doesn't move." It's more like std::rvalue_cast. C++ uses r-value
references in order to be able to rip the guts out of objects and
put them into other objects.
D doesn't have a distinct r-value reference type, and postblit is
part of the struct types. If you write simply T foo(); and you
return some struct T, D already moves the struct out of the
function without you having to define any move constructors. That
kind of return value optimisation was the original motivation for
r-value references, for when C++98 RVO isn't good enough, from my
understanding.
The only remaining time you need to avoid copies is when you take
something already on the stack, and then put it into some other
object, into some collection, etc. That's the other power that
std::move affords you. The move functions in std.algorithm should
take care of that.
Maybe someone else will correct me on a point or two there, but
that's the understanding of move semantics in D that I have had.
- Re: D's equivalent to C++'s std::mo... w0rp via Digitalmars-d
-
