I'm not a fan of the idea of blessing certain types with a compiler-defined whitelist. And if the choice is then between ugly code and copy constructors, I'll take ugly code over surprising code.
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Patrick Walton <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6/20/14 12:07 PM, Paulo Sérgio Almeida wrote:] > > Currently being Copy equates with being Pod. The more time passes and >> the more code examples I see, it is amazing the amount of ugliness that >> it causes. I wonder if there is a way out. >> > > Part of the problem is that a lot of library code assumes that Copy types > can be copied by just moving bytes around. Having copy constructors would > mean that this simplifying assumption would have to change. It's doable, I > suppose, but having copy constructors would have a significant downside. > > Patrick > > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
