dmd 1.070 and 2.055 release

[Walter Bright]

On 9/11/2011 2:18 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> isn't legal when S is a struct whose default constructor has been disabled.
> Actually, what worries me is what happens when you try and use S.init (I
> haven't tried it, so I don't know what happens). S.init has effectively been
> made non-existent by this @disable this(); but there's plenty of templated
> code out there that would try and use the init value for checking stuff. I
> would assume that such code would fail, but I don't know. Assuming that such
> code can actually work with a struct whose default initializer has been
> disabled, such template constraints are going to have to be written differently
> now.

Using S.init is still fine. The idea is to force the use of explicit initialization.