On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 13:29:56 -0400, KennyTM~ <kenn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 30, 11 01:19, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I think he was referring to the line:
X x = 0;
Where x could not possibly be anything other than null.
-Steve
That's definitely a bug. Why should a declaration call opAssign?
X x = new X;
is equivalent to
X x;
x = new X;
new X is an expression, which doesn't have to be the rvalue of an
assignment, I suppose you can substitute any valid expression for it:
X x;
x = 0;
=>
X x = 0;
Also, if X is a struct, and the struct defines opAssign(int), this would
be valid.
I wouldn't mind if it was a bug, because clearly you never want to call
opAssign on an uninitialized class. But it definitely would be a special
case.
-Steve
