On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 at 10:20, aliak via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > > On Friday, 13 July 2018 at 12:31:41 UTC, Atila Neves wrote: > > On Friday, 13 July 2018 at 03:01:25 UTC, Manu wrote: > >> On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 at 19:15, Andrei Alexandrescu via > >> Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 7/12/18 6:34 PM, Manu wrote: > >>> > On Thu, 12 Jul 2018 at 06:50, Andrei Alexandrescu via > >>> > Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > >>> >> > >> [..] > >> doesn't perform copy construction? > >> 1. the function is highly unlikely to exist because > >> postblit; it's a > >> meaningless function to write. are there any known instances > >> of that > >> signature in the wild? > > > > https://github.com/search?q=%22this%5C%28ref%22+language%3AD&type=Code > > > > The answer seems to be: not many. Most of the results above are > > false positives because github won't let me escape the left > > parenthesis. > > > > Atila > > https://www.google.no/search?q=allintext%3A+%22this%28ref%22+site%3Agithub.com+filetype%3Ad&oq=allintext%3A+%22this%28ref%22+site%3Agithub.com+filetype%3Ad
I clicked through quite a few. Every function that's a valid copy constructor by the definition here does indeed perform a valid copy construction with no side-effects, as predicted. Existing functions interpreted as copy constructors under this DIP would continue to work as intended. There's a ridiculously low probability that any such wild function that would be broken by a no-attribute version of this DIP exists.
