On Thursday, November 29, 2012 20:27:32 Dmitry Olshansky wrote: > 11/29/2012 7:24 AM, Walter Bright пишет: > > On 11/29/2012 4:47 AM, monarch_dodra wrote: > >> On Sunday, 25 November 2012 at 16:47:08 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote: > >>> Thoughts? > >> > >> I don't know about "killing" T(), but I think there *needs* to be an > >> (easy) mechanism to declare ***and*** run-time initialize an object, in > >> a single and comprehensive line. > >> > >> I had proposed something 2 months ago here: > >> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/bvuquzwfykiytdwsq...@forum.dlang.org > >> > >> The proposal wasn't perfect, but still. We need to figure something > >> out... > > > > 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. > > Okay let it be. I'm not against having a defined blank default > constructed object. > > Just don't make T() mean it, please!
I'm all for T() meaning T.init if T doesn't have a static opCall, but T() shouldn't be guaranteed to be T.init. I'd very much like to see code like auto t = T(); to continue to work regardless of whether T has a static opCall or not. But it should be able to have a static opCall, and T() should work if it doesn't have one. Assuming that T() means T.init makes no sense. - Jonathan M Davis
