On 07/19/2012 10:14 AM, Christophe Travert wrote: > "monarch_dodra" , dans le message (digitalmars.D:172700), a écrit : >> I think it would be better to "initialize on copy", rather than >> default initialize. There are too many cases an empty array is >> created, then initialized on the next line, or passed to >> something else that does the initialization proper. > > Not default-initializing Array has a cost for every legitimate use of an > Array. I think people use Array more often than they create > uninitialized ones that are not going to be used before an other Array > instance is assigned to them, so Array would be more efficient if it was > default initialized and never check it is initialized again. But that's > just speculation.
I agree here. Additionally my question: Is it possible (at the moment) to really do "initialize on copy"? As far as I see it, the only way to interact here is to implement 'this(this)' which is called after bit-copying and hence cannot access the source of the copy process.