According to TDPL, the rationale for structs not having default
constructors is "T.init", were T.init is defined as:
*A static, known at compile time, mem-copyable value.
*The value that gets mem-copied into structs before the
constructors are called
*The value that gets mem-copied into structs
On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 11:34:12 monarch_dodra wrote:
> According to TDPL, the rationale for structs not having default
> constructors is "T.init", were T.init is defined as:
> *A static, known at compile time, mem-copyable value.
> *The value that gets mem-copied into structs before the
> cons
On Wednesday, 25 July 2012 at 09:51:49 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
If you want to be able to do S(), then declare a static opCall
for S which
returns an S constructed in the way that you want.
struct S
{
static S opCall()
{
//do whatever you do
return s;
}
}
auto s
On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 12:30:56 +0200, monarch_dodra
wrote:
I read TDPL back to back like 5 times before posting this, but it never
mentions opCall. I just checked the index right now, it is not in there.
Is this new?
Hardly. Once upon a time, in the bad old days, structs didn't have
constr
Le 25/07/2012 12:30, monarch_dodra a écrit :
On Wednesday, 25 July 2012 at 09:51:49 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
If you want to be able to do S(), then declare a static opCall for S
which
returns an S constructed in the way that you want.
struct S
{
static S opCall()
{
//do whatever you do
retu
Le 25/07/2012 11:51, Jonathan M Davis a écrit :
On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 11:34:12 monarch_dodra wrote:
According to TDPL, the rationale for structs not having default
constructors is "T.init", were T.init is defined as:
*A static, known at compile time, mem-copyable value.
*The value that get
On Wednesday, 25 July 2012 at 10:40:22 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
Static opCall isn't a solution. You can't new on it. And it
seems weird that you can disable something that don't possibly
exists in the first place.
This topic comes back again and again on the NG, it have to be
considered.
If I
