On Sunday, 10 November 2013 at 13:46:20 UTC, Kenji Hara wrote:
2013/11/10 Daniel Davidson <nos...@spam.com>
With this design, is there no need then for struct
constructors - or would
this be orthogonal or in addition to those?
Currently "constructing unique object" is already supported.
http://dlang.org/class#constructors
If the constructor can create unique object (e.g. if it is
pure), the
object can be implicitly convertible to any qualifiers.
Indeed, the definition could be improved by using "initializing
unique
expression" concept. But it is not directly related to the
DIP49. So the
answer is "this is orthogonal".
From this thread
(http://forum.dlang.org/post/mailman.89.1383248384.9546.digitalmars-d-le...@puremagic.com)
I was under the impression that const/immutable and postblits
don't mix. This DIP seems to be trying to address that. One of
the potential workarounds to this issue was the idea of struct
copy constructors. This is what I was referring to. With this
proposal, is there still a need for struct copy constructors?
Thanks
Dan
