On Tuesday, 14 August 2012 at 15:24:30 UTC, F i L wrote:
Really? We can catch (or, should be able to) missing
initialization of stuff with @disable this(), but not floats?
Classes have constructors, which lend themselves perfectly to
doing exactly this (just pretend the member is a local
variable).
Perhaps there are problems with structs without disabled
default constructors, but even those are trivially solvable by
requiring a default value at declaration time.
You know, I never actually thought about it much, but I think
you're right. I guess the same rules could apply to type fields.
Mmmm... What if you added a command that has a file/local scope?
perhaps following the @disable this(), it could be @disable init;
or @disable .init. This would only work for built-in types, and
possibly structs with variables that aren't explicitly set with
default values. It sorta already fits with what's there.
@disable init; //global scope in file, like @safe.
struct someCipher {
@disable init; //local scope, in this case the whole struct.
int[][] tables; //now gives compile-time error unless @disable
this() used.
ubyte[] key = [1,2,3,4]; //explicitly defined as a default
this(ubyte[] k, int[][] t){key=k;tables=t;}
}
void myfun() {
someCipher x; //compile time error since struct fails (But not
at this line unless @disable this() used)
someCipher y = someCipher([[1,2],[1,2]]); //should work as
expected.
}
