On Mon, 14 Oct 2024 at 12:54, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote:

On 10/11/2024 8:44 AM, Manu wrote:
> 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!

But currently this(S) is an rvalue constructor, not a move constructor. I've
said this many times.

I've also said many times; an rvalue constructor is a move constructor for all intents and purposes.

Show me a case study; what might you do with an rvalue constructor if not initialise an instance from an rvalue?

Changing it would break existing code.

That's fine. It's already broken; OR, it's already a move constructor.