On Thu, 10 Oct 2024, 17:22 Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d, <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

On 10/8/2024 11:08 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> So, if
>
> this(S)
>
> suddenly becomes a move constructor, existing code will have a normal
> constructor suddenly turned into a move constructor.

Yup. Kaboom.

No that's wrong; this is EXACTLY the situation that move semantics exist to address. Move constructor like this should ACTUALLY BE a move constructor!