11/29/2012 9:12 PM, jerro пишет:
The original idea is that there should be *no such thing* as default
construction of a struct as being anything other than T.init. The
default construction of a struct should be a compile time creature,
not a runtime one.
Any methods or workarounds to try and make T() produce something
different from T.init is bad D practice. The compiler tries to
statically head them off, but probably should do a better job of that.
The only reason to associate no parameter constructors with default
values is because of how C++ works. There is no reason why
Foo foo; (1)
should be equivalent to
auto foo = Foo(); (2)
in D. We could allow constructors with no parameters and make (1)
equivalent to
auto foo = Foo.init; (3)
The current workaround when one wants (2) to construct the object at
runtime is to define a static opCall, but that's messy and inconsistent.
It's just one more quirk one needs to learn to effectively use the
language.
Yup. It looks like a poorly copied syntactic carry-over from C++ that
doesn't quite make sense in the presence of T.init.
--
Dmitry Olshansky
