Simen kjaeraas wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:12:47 +0100, grauzone <n...@example.net> wrote:
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
grauzone Wrote:
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
Jesse Phillips Wrote:
Jason House wrote:
Andrei's finishing his last TDPL chapter, Sean is updating
std.thread(?), and Walter's been fixing forward reference and
CTFE bugs. What's left?
This page[1] has been getting regular updates, so it should do a
good
job answering the question.
1.
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel#FutureDirections
From this list: default struct constructors?
Walter doesn't want. This will go down as one of the larger
language incapabilities.
Andrei
Sigh...
Why can't you just use opCall?
It's ugly, doesn't work sometimes and is inconsistent with other
constructors.
Why doesn't it work, bugs?
Use opCall instead of constructor in the other cases too?
Are there cases where ctors can do something opCall can't? I thought
constructors were only added for symmetry with dtors.
Take this for example:
struct S {
int n;
this( ) {
n = random( );
}
}
class C {
S s;
}
In C++, 'new C( );' would call S's constructor, and initialize n to
some random number. opCall can do the same thing, but must be
explicitly called in C's constructor. This can be unacceptable for
libraries, at least.
Yes, but ctors with empty argument list aren't coming to D anyway.
