[Issue 8118] Impossible to initialize a member struct without default constructor or assigment
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8118
Kenji Hara changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution||DUPLICATE
--- Comment #7 from Kenji Hara 2013-11-28 20:39:33 PST ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> This seems to be fixed now (code compiles and runs on 2.064).
The OP case is fixed in 2.064, by fixing issue 9665.
(In reply to comment #5)
> I haven't checked, but it could allow code like this if not currently
> possible:
>
> S s = void;
> if (xyz) {
> s = S(3);
> } else {
> s = S(7);
> }
This is completely different case. It would need to use std.conv.emplace.
*** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of issue 9665 ***
--
Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8118] Impossible to initialize a member struct without default constructor or assigment
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8118 Simen Kjaeraas changed: What|Removed |Added CC||simen.kja...@gmail.com --- Comment #6 from Simen Kjaeraas 2013-11-28 12:13:34 PST --- This seems to be fixed now (code compiles and runs on 2.064). -- Configure issuemail: https://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8118] Impossible to initialize a member struct without default constructor or assigment
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8118
Marco Leise changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marco.le...@gmx.de
--- Comment #5 from Marco Leise 2013-02-15 06:17:42 PST ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> The fact that it's **impossible** to call the constructor directly without an
> assignment getting in the way (as far as I see) is a bug.
I agree with you. I have a struct that is not supposed to be copied. Now I
cannot use it as a field in any other struct/class.
In some cases a work-around may be to allow assignments, but check that the
receiver is S.init.
Also I tried "= void" first. So it may be the most intuitive to use for the bug
fix.
I haven't checked, but it could allow code like this if not currently possible:
S s = void;
if (xyz) {
s = S(3);
} else {
s = S(7);
}
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8118] Impossible to initialize a member struct without default constructor or assigment
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8118
--- Comment #4 from wfunct...@hotmail.com 2012-05-19 12:17:48 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > No bug here you just diabled too much. Undisable opAssign.
> >
> > It's opAssign that gets called whne a = ... is seen:
> > this() { s = S(to!int("1")); }
> > If opAssign is trivial it replaced with bitblit. (that is disable comes
> > first!)
>
> Uh, no, it's a bug IMO.
>
>
> I never asked for an assignment. I want to CONSTRUCT the object manually.
For example, pretend this is the Scoped struct. I *obviously* wouldn't want to
assign anything, but I'd want to construct the object.
The fact that it's **impossible** to call the constructor directly without an
assignment getting in the way (as far as I see) is a bug.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8118] Impossible to initialize a member struct without default constructor or assigment
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8118
--- Comment #3 from wfunct...@hotmail.com 2012-05-19 12:15:42 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> No bug here you just diabled too much. Undisable opAssign.
>
> It's opAssign that gets called whne a = ... is seen:
> this() { s = S(to!int("1")); }
> If opAssign is trivial it replaced with bitblit. (that is disable comes
> first!)
Uh, no, it's a bug IMO.
I never asked for an assignment. I want to CONSTRUCT the object manually.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8118] Impossible to initialize a member struct without default constructor or assigment
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8118
Dmitry Olshansky changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmitry.o...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Dmitry Olshansky 2012-05-19
03:44:28 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> struct S
> {
> @disable this();
> this(int) { }
> @disable void opAssign(typeof(this));
> }
>
> class Test
> {
> S s = void; // I *EXPLICITLY* told it not to be initialized, but...
> this() { s = S(to!int("1")); }
> }
>
> void main() { new Test(); }
>
>
> Error: function S.opAssign is not callable because it is annotated with
> @disable
> Error: default construction is disabled for type Test
>
>
>
> Structs without default constructors are pretty much impossible to use.
No bug here you just diabled too much. Undisable opAssign.
It's opAssign that gets called whne a = ... is seen:
this() { s = S(to!int("1")); }
If opAssign is trivial it replaced with bitblit. (that is disable comes first!)
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
[Issue 8118] Impossible to initialize a member struct without default constructor or assigment
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8118 --- Comment #1 from wfunct...@hotmail.com 2012-05-18 17:05:45 PDT --- Possibly related: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8117 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: ---
