On 07/12/2018 02:54 AM, RazvanN wrote:
What's wrong with:
struct S {
  this(ref S copyFrom);
}

That looks like a perfectly good copy constructor declaration ;) I'm just saying, the DIP needs to explain this.

That is actually a valid constructor, according to today's compiler. There
might be code out there that uses this syntax for the constructor and overnight
it will be turned into a copy constructor.

I agree that the current syntax is lacking. This was Andrei's proposition
and I was initially against it, but he said to put it in the DIP so that
we can discuss it as a community. Maybe this syntax is better:

@this(ref S a another)

It looks like the c++ copy constructor but the `@` makes it different from
a constructor, so we're good. What do you think?

We will not add syntax if we can help it.

Reply via email to