Denis Koroskin wrote:
Christopher Wright Wrote:
Any case in which the default constructor has side effects or
preconditions is a problem.
1) It is a valid C++ construct, and I don't remember having any problem with it.
2) It's just a shortcut for Foo foo = new Foo(). If you don't plan to
instanciate the instance immediately, i.e. you want to leave it as null, you
should mark it as nullable:
Foo? foo; // no ctor call made
Okay, so your proposal relies on the nullable types proposal, which I
dislike; and given the nullable types proposal, this is reasonable.
