On Thursday, 8 September 2016 at 10:06:16 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
I think it's too late for this stuff now for D anyway. There are workarounds that make life acceptable without default constructors, I can't see how we could add them without getting into a real mess.
The kind of flow analysis required to ensure something is constructed before use is roughly the same as the one required to do non nullable reference and/or lifetime analysis (in fact that last one require a superset of what is required for the first 2).
If adding it simply for the default constructor is probably hitting the wrong tradeof in term of bang for the buck, adding to get the 3 above seems like it would be worth it.
As s side note, this is why I think issue based language discussion is not a good way to proceed, as we are missing the kind of bigger picture insight as this one. When going issue based we are like, "Do we want to add this for default ctors ? No, it doesn't pay for itself." Then later on "Do we want to add this for non nullable references ? No, it doesn't pay for itself." and so, whereas the rational question would be "Do we want to add this for default ctors, non nullable references and lifetime analysis ? Well now, probably yes." Thing is, considering each question individually wouldn't yield the best choice.
