After further review, I now realize that the right way (for me) to do this is
to add a .dup property. So instead of
S foo(const S s) {
S other;
other = s;
}
or
S foo(const S s) {
S other = S(s);
return other;
}
which didn't look right to me, I can write
S foo(const S s) {
S other = s.dup;
return other;
}
which is ultimately an equivalent operation.
Thanks again, everyone for taking the time to explain what was going on.
Paul
It just looks better to me.
Paul D. Anderson Wrote:
> bearophile Wrote:
>
> > The idea now is to find a way to encapsulate that manual copying & dupping
> > into some overloaded operator of S. But I have failed so far. Operator
> > overloading in D2 is not an easy thing, it needs training. (That's why I
> > have recently asked for the compiler to be strict to avoid wrong usages of
> > the operator overloading.)
> >
> > Bye,
> > bearophile
>
>
> So I understand better now, thanks, what is wrong. I'm a little disappointed
> that there is apparently no way to implement case 4 for any struct with a
> reference.
>
> Paul
