Am Thu, 12 Jul 2018 17:32:06 +0000 schrieb Johannes Pfau: > Am Thu, 12 Jul 2018 09:48:37 -0400 schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu: > >>> 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. > > We have this(this) for postblits so how about this(ref this a) for copy > constructors? > > Unfortunately this is currently valid code and compiles: this is treated > as typeof(this). However, we have already deprecated that, so maybe we > can reuse the syntax? It should be a quite consistent evolution from > this(this). > > (Another option is this(ref this A a) which does not conflict with > existing syntax).
I just read your other replies Andrei. I guess if we're ever going use the same syntax for implicit conversions, the @implicit syntax is indeed consistent and logical. As long as it's only used for copy-ctors the name feels 'strange'. -- Johannes
