On Wednesday, 3 October 2018 at 08:21:38 UTC, Manu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 6:15 PM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d
<digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:
On 10/2/2018 4:30 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Tuesday, 2 October 2018 at 22:30:38 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
> wrote:
>> Yeah. IIRC, it was supposed to be _guaranteed_ that the
>> compiler moved structs in a number of situations - e.g.
>> when the return value was an rvalue. Something like
>
> Eh, I don't think that moves it, but rather just constructs
> it in-place for the next call.
The technical term for that is "copy elision".
Okay, so copy elision is working... but moves otherwise are
not? That's still not what we've been peddling all these years.
A whole lot of design surface area is dedicated to implicit
move semantics... and they don't work? What does it do?
postblit unnecessarily?
The impression is that you are complaining about the continuous
lack of "things" based on an incomplete knowledge of how D works
in detail ... tragically you invoke low-level features, and you
do not know the question.
The fact that in D the structures to date are not moved, is known
for years ... take advantage of this fact, and move on.
Work on an implementation that works, AFTER profile it, and
possibly complain about performance.
