Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:46:47 +0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
Don wrote:
Bartosz Milewski wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
this() { myCount = count++; } // ERROR
It's worse than that. Try this:
struct foo {
this(int dummy = 0) { writeln("Default constructor");}
}
foo x = foo();
Nothing gets printed. If default constructors are disallowed, so
should constructors with all parameters defaulted.
Ouch.
It's because it's interpreting foo() as a struct literal.
If a struct has any constructors, struct literals should be disabled.
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3438
The more I think of it, the more imperious it becomes that we allow
default constructors that execute code. The main question is what to
do about .init.
Andrei
I'd suggest ditching it and enforce explicit member initialization
(unless a variable is nullable). This will also remove a lot of bloat
from executables.
I don't understand. The problem right now is that even of all fields are
explicitly intialized, e.g.
struct A {
Widget x = null;
double d = 0;
int i = -1;
}
there is still no ability to execute code upon initialization, e.g.
force A to contain a non-null Widget.
Andrei
