https://forum.dlang.org/post/ojabjveywfhcpdnqrhof@forum.dlang.org

On Friday, 19 April 2019 at 12:21:55 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> The DIP author is no longer around to shepherd the implementation. It's not forgotten, however, and is one of many work items that I'm keeping track of. If I'm unable to find anyone with the necessary chops to implement it voluntarily, then we'll eventually try to fund its implementation via the new Human Resource Fund.

Any update on DOP1014 ?

On Thursday, 26 November 2020 at 05:41:21 UTC, CalvinP wrote:
> https://forum.dlang.org/post/ojabjveywfhcpdnqrhof@forum.dlang.org
>
> On Friday, 19 April 2019 at 12:21:55 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>> The DIP author is no longer around to shepherd the implementation. It's not forgotten, however, and is one of many work items that I'm keeping track of. If I'm unable to find anyone with the necessary chops to implement it voluntarily, then we'll eventually try to fund its implementation via the new Human Resource Fund.
>
> Any update on DOP1014 ?

As I understand it, it's been made obsolete by copy constructors.

On Thursday, 26 November 2020 at 12:07:23 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>
> As I understand it, it's been made obsolete by copy constructors.

Then https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17448 should be closed ?

And also DIP1014 status should be updated from current status(Accepted).

On Friday, 27 November 2020 at 01:22:25 UTC, CalvinP wrote:

> And also DIP1014 status should be updated from current status(Accepted).

No. The DIP was accepted. Just because it probably won't be implemented doesn't mean that changes.

On Friday, 27 November 2020 at 02:57:57 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>
> No. The DIP was accepted. Just because it probably won't be implemented doesn't mean that changes.

OK.

Any way I think some extra information about the DIP1014 future will be necessary.

On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 1:10 PM CalvinP via Digitalmars-d < digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Friday, 27 November 2020 at 02:57:57 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> >
> > No. The DIP was accepted. Just because it probably won't be implemented doesn't mean that changes.
>
> OK.
>
> Any way I think some extra information about the DIP1014 future will be necessary.
>

1014 is dead, just the same way as postblit is dead; it's broken by design. Copy constructors appeared because postblit couldn't be fixed. By all the same reasoning, postMove was broken and move constructors were being developed as a replacement for 1014, but the person carrying the move constructor implementation disappeared mysteriously :/