On 09/12/2011 05:10 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:50:49 -0400, Simen Kjaeraas
<simen.kja...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 16:43:36 +0200, Steven Schveighoffer
<schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
While I agree a nested "@disable this" struct inside a struct should
disable default construction of the outer struct, a class *requires*
initialization, and a default constructor is called explicitly (and
can be defined!) We are talking two different worlds here.
I think the above should be accepted. I'm not sure how feasible it
is, since it requires code path analysis.
What do you mean analysis? What's needed is checking 'did this class
explicitly implement a default ctor?'. Te other test ('is the struct
properly initialized?' is already performed for other constructors,
so should pose no huge impediment.
I mean the compiler has to verify a constructor is called for the member
struct in the class constructor.
You also must define a constructor of some kind (does not have to be a
no-arg ctor), because the compiler generated default constructor cannot
call the default constructor of the struct.
Maybe it's easy, but I have no idea, hence "I'm not sure" :)
-Steve
The compiler already checks that for non-default class constructors, so
the change would probably be very easy to carry out.
