DMD 1.035 and 2.019 releases

[Jarrett Billingsley]

On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Walter Bright <newshound1 at digitalmars.com>wrote:

> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>
>> Speaking of syntactical ambiguity, the expression
>>
>> S(1, 2, 3)
>>
>> can, right now, have one of three meanings:
>>
>> 1. A struct literal for struct S
>> 2. A call to S's static opCall
>> 3. An instantiation of S and a call to its ctor
>>
>> Even if opCall goes away, we'll still be left with the ambiguity of struct
>> literal vs. ctor.  I'd really, really like to hear Walter's view on this but
>> he has responded neither to the thread I posted on digitalmars.D nor the
>> bugzilla ticket (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2170).
>>
>
> If there's any constructor defined for S, then S(args) is a constructor
> call.
>
> If there's any opCall defined for S, then S(args) is an opCall call.
>
> Otherwise, it's a struct literal.
>

So uh,

why don't you want to change struct literals?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d-announce/attachments/20080903/97ce2633/attachment.htm>