On Wednesday, 12 September 2018 at 11:39:21 UTC, Dejan Lekic
wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 September 2018 at 15:22:55 UTC, rikki cattermole
wrote:
Here is a question (that I don't think has been asked) why not
@copy?
@copy this(ref Foo other) { }
It can be read as copy constructor, which would be excellent
for helping people learn what it is doing (spec lookup).
Also can we really not come up with an alternative bit of code
than the tupleof to copying wholesale? E.g. super(other);
I could not agree more. @implicit can mean many things, while
@copy is much more specific... For what is worth I vote for
@copy ! :)
@implicit makes sense if extending explicitly implicit calls to
all other constructors gets somday considered. Some people argued
for it and I agree with them that it'd be nice to have, for ex.
to make a custom string struct type usable without having to
smear the code with constructor calls.
