On 11/04/2013 03:23 AM, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
> On Monday, 4 November 2013 at 09:42:53 UTC, Jakob Ovrum wrote:
>> My understanding is that your example illustrates a *move*, not a
>> *copy*. AFAICT, non-copyable structs would be next to useless if we
>> couldn't move them.
>
> I know, and I agree. The question is whether this is a move *by
> specification*, i.e. whether the language makes a guarantee that return
> values are always moved under certain circumstances. If so, this should
> be mentioned in the spec, along with a detailed description of said
> circumstances.
I thought so too. So, I prepared the talk "Copy and Move Semantics in D"
where 'move' is described as a fundamental struct operation. I presented
the talk at the presence of Walter, Andrei, and other D experts and
nobody objected! :p (I hope not merely because they were being polite.)
http://dconf.org/2013/talks/cehreli.html
Ali
