DMD 0.177 release

[Jarrett Billingsley]

"Pragma" <ericanderton at yahoo.removeme.com> wrote in message 
news:elmhtj$1qv7$1 at digitaldaemon.com...

> Well, I think it's one of the reasons why we don't have ctors for structs 
> right now.  The preferred syntax for a "struct ctor" would probably be 
> this:
>
> S foo = S(a,b,c);
>
> Which is indistinct from "static opCall".  Throwing 'new' in there 
> wouldn't work either, since that would be a dynamic allocation:
>
> S* foo = new S(a,b,c);
>
> So that leaves us with "something else" that provides both a way to invoke 
> a ctor, yet allocates the data on the stack and doesn't force you to 
> create an additional copy:
>
> S foo(a,b,c);  // c++ style
> S foo = stackalloc S(a,b,c); // alloca() style (in place of new)
> S foo = new(stack) S(a,b,c): // another idea

Personally for in-place stack allocation, I like the C++ style the best. 
It's the simplest to deal with for the compiler (it's 100% obvious that it's 
being created on the stack and there's no need for optimization to take care 
of anything).  And it makes sense -- it says "make this a local variable, 
but call the constructor on it as well."  There's no assignment so it 
doesn't look like any copying is going on.