On 5/27/15 9:13 PM, ketmar wrote:
On Wed, 27 May 2015 17:31:32 -0600, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
But we can solve this with a postblit:
seems that you forgot about "move" semantics for structs. under some
conditions struct can be "moved", not "copied", so it `memcpy`ed and no
postblit will be called.
Right, that is a drawback of the first form. You have to ensure that
doesn't happen (which is why we say struct interior pointers are illegal).
The real proposal doesn't have that issue, and that's actually the point
of it :)
-Steve
