On 11/11/13 8:30 PM, Kenji Hara wrote:
2013/11/11 Daniel Davidson <nos...@spam.com <mailto:nos...@spam.com>>>From this thread (http://forum.dlang.org/post/__mailman.89.1383248384.9546.__digitalmars-d-learn@puremagic.__com <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? 1.5 years ago, I did asked to Andrei about the postbit issue. <http://forum.dlang.org/thread/CAFDvkcvvL8GxHQB=Rw9pTm-uxOKzNGVQNDv9w5Os3SkQCc=d...@mail.gmail.com> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/CAFDvkcvvL8GxHQB=Rw9pTm-uxOKzNGVQNDv9w5Os3SkQCc=d...@mail.gmail.com Andrei had thought that the issue will be fixed by adding "copy constructor" in D. However I believed that the postblit concept would be able to improved more. So I couldn't convince about his thought. DIP49 is the final conclusion of my belief. I can say that copy constructor is unnecessary in D. Kenji Hara
I think it's great to address that problem (I'm not wed to any particular approach). My schedule has been crazy over the past few days, but I'll do my best to give a close read you DIP49.
Thanks, Andrei
