On 20/10/2009 00:38, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I'm having a hard time justifying that you use
new X(args)
to create a class object, and
X(args)
to create a struct object. I wrote this:
============
The syntactic difference between the expression creating a @struct@
object---Test(@\meta{args}@)@---and the expression creating a @class@
object---\cc{new Test(}\meta{args}@)@---may be jarring at first. \dee
could have dropped the @new@ keyword entirely, but that @new@ reminds
the programmer that an object allocation (i.e., nontrivial work) takes
place.
===============
I'm unhappy about that explanation because the distinction is indeed
very weak. The constructor of a struct could also do unbounded amounts
of work, so what gives?
I hereby suggest we get rid of new for class object creation. What do
you guys think?
Andrei
I'm all for it.
I'd like to see something like:
class Foo;
auto obj = Foo.new(args);
I'd like to see a design where new allows polymorphism and different
allocation schemes - basically fix all the problems as described in that
Java article "what's wrong with new".
