On 04/10/18 13:43, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
* move the data as part of the call hook rather than before
* Use a different name and signature on the hook function
Yes, exactly.
It would have to be special if you don't want to leave room for the
compiler implementors.
That's not how standards work. If you don't want compiler implementors
to have a choice in the matter, you put MUST in the specs. Doing
anything else is, by and large, considered harmful.
The calling convention for particular types (i.e.
those that do have a move hook defined) would have to be enforced in
some way. See the neighbor thread wrt move semantics by kinke.
Two distinct things. Kinke was talking about how to pass a struct
through the ABI. You are talking about special-casing a specific name.
Not to mention, your special case is to transform it to something you
can *already* specify in the language. Why?
Which is, however, not a reason to formalize it and make it a
requirement for an isolated specific case, such as this one, utilizing a
syntax that is currently not used by the language.
There is positively nothing in DIP 1014 that is "syntax not used by the
language". Quite the contrary.
As opposed to trying
to fit existing language semantics to something that the language didn't
seem to want to allow in the first place.
Formalize it as a suggestion, and we can discuss the "as opposed to".
Like I said, I think there's a lot you're glossing over here (such as
backwards compatibility).
Shachar
