Why don't we call copy-constructors **reconstruct**ors?

I think it'd be funny if we called copy-constructors (constructors that take a set of data from one object and puts it in another - of the same type) reconstructors, because they are reconstructing the original object.

Comments

[Mujtaba Aldebes]

well a joke is a joke,.. buuutttt to be not fun at parties ;)

The word reconstruct refer to it self, ergo rebuild/fix a damage on the object itself without copying it. This proposal would introduce grammar disagreement into the language.

[Calin Baenen]

Yeah.... buuuuut technically "re" means "again", and even though it's not as simple as root+word=literalTranslation, "reconstruct" literally only means "to construct again", which you are technically doing if you re-construct the object.

But, do you know any root words for "copy" or "duplicate", etc...
Maybe we could just tack that on, instead of "re". \;p

[Pierre Gradot]

How would you call move constructors then?

Furthermore, copy constructors don't reconstruct. They construct an object. Aren't you confusing copy constructor and copy assignment operator?

[Calin Baenen]

Got the same thing on Reddit. Still, move constructors. - They literally love the data.

[Jai Prakash Vishwakarma]

Good suggestion :)

[Ovidiu Miu]

Not a bad name..