Le 25/09/2011 21:02, Peter Alexander a écrit :
On 25/09/11 7:37 PM, deadalnix wrote:
Le 25/09/2011 04:52, Andrei Alexandrescu a écrit :
On 9/24/11 9:31 PM, Michel Fortin wrote:
Perhaps I am missing the point. What would be gained by forcing
this(this) to be nothrow?
It further frees the standard library to cater for the throwing case.
Andrei
If I understand, what is explained in this thread is things that the
standard lib can assume concerning this(this) ?
So, in the end, I'm not disallowed to have an expensive this(this), but
I should expect that the standard lib will not behave optimally in this
case ?
Or are we talking about some modification/restriction in the language ?
I believe it's just the library. There's no way the language could
reasonably enforce it anyway.
It probably just means Phobos will do more copies than C++ would for
example.
The language could enforce that this(this) had to be nothrowor whatever.
Or make it a warning (warning : this(this) should be a nothrow function).
For the complexity, it is hard to come up with something at the laguage
level.
