On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 6:15 PM Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > > On 10/2/2018 4:30 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: > > On Tuesday, 2 October 2018 at 22:30:38 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > >> Yeah. IIRC, it was supposed to be _guaranteed_ that the compiler moved > >> structs > >> in a number of situations - e.g. when the return value was an rvalue. > >> Something like > > > > Eh, I don't think that moves it, but rather just constructs it in-place for > > the > > next call. > > The technical term for that is "copy elision".
Okay, so copy elision is working... but moves otherwise are not? That's still not what we've been peddling all these years. A whole lot of design surface area is dedicated to implicit move semantics... and they don't work? What does it do? postblit unnecessarily?