dmd 1.070 and 2.055 release

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:50:49 -0400, Simen Kjaeraas  
<simen.kjaras at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 16:43:36 +0200, Steven Schveighoffer  
> <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> While I agree a nested "@disable this" struct inside a struct should  
>> disable default construction of the outer struct, a class *requires*  
>> initialization, and a default constructor is called explicitly (and can  
>> be defined!)  We are talking two different worlds here.
>>
>> I think the above should be accepted.  I'm not sure how feasible it is,  
>> since it requires code path analysis.
>
> What do you mean analysis? What's needed is checking 'did this class
> explicitly implement a default ctor?'. Te other test ('is the struct
> properly initialized?' is already performed for other constructors,
> so should pose no huge impediment.

I mean the compiler has to verify a constructor is called for the member  
struct in the class constructor.

You also must define a constructor of some kind (does not have to be a  
no-arg ctor), because the compiler generated default constructor cannot  
call the default constructor of the struct.

Maybe it's easy, but I have no idea, hence "I'm not sure" :)

-Steve