On Thursday, July 25, 2024 4:48:06 PM MDT Quirin Schroll via Digitalmars-d-
learn wrote:
> It seems one can’t have one in a struct together with a copy
> constructor, but what is it? When is it called? What is it for?
An rvalue constructor is a constructor that takes the same type as the
struct that it's in, but it takes it as an rvalue (whereas a copy
constructor takes it as an lvalue). So, if you have
struct MyType
{
this(MyType rhs)
{
...
}
}
then you can do stuff like MyType(getMyType()) where getMyType returns a
MyType, whereas if you don't have such a constructor, you can't. This is
particularly useful in generic code. For instance, if you have an algebraic
type that takes a whole bunch of types, you can do something like
this(T)(T rhs)
{
...
}
and then you can happily call MyType(getMyType()) where getMyType() returns
a MyType.
However, without that rvalue constructor, then MyType(getMyType()) can't be
done. So, if MyType has a copy constructor, you're forced to check for
MyType with such a templated constructor, e.g.
this(T)(T rhs)
if(!is(immutable T == immutable MyType))
{
...
}
and you need to create a wrapper function to be able to generically
construct a MyType, e.g.
MyType make(T)(T rhs)
{
static if(is(immutable T == immutable MyType))
return rhs;
else
return MyType(rhs);
}
Of course, for most code, you really don't need to be able to construct a
struct from its own type, so in many cases, you really don't need an rvalue
constructor, but when you do need it, the fact that copy constructors don't
allow them is pretty annoying.
With the current DIP proposal for move constructors, an rvalue constructor
would become a move constructor, though since it's not necessarily obvious
that that's what it is, and such constructors already exist as normal
constructors, there are some objections to making such a change. But of
course, we'll have to see what ultimately happens with that.
- Jonathan M Davis
