dmd 2.063 beta 5

[Iain Buclaw]

On 23 May 2013 14:52, Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013 05:05:01 -0400, Don <turnyourkidsintocash at nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 at 20:36:20 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Join the dmd beta mailing list to keep up with the betas. This one is
>>> pretty much good to go, unless something disastrous crops up.
>>>
>>> http://ftp.digitalmars.com/dmd2beta.zip
>>>
>>> Remaining regressions:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&bug_severity=regression&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED
>>
>>
>> NO NO NO NO. I am violently opposed to this release.
>>
>> This beta contains the worst language misfeature of all time. It's
>> silently snuck in under the guise of a bugfix.
>>
>>
>> struct S
>> {
>>      const int x = 7;
>>      int y;
>> }
>>
>> In previous releases, S.x was always 7.
>> But now, if you write
>>
>> S s = S(5);
>>
>> then x gets changed to 5.
>> This means that the const variable x has been initialized TWICE!
>
>
>> This new behaviour is counter-intuitive and introduces a horrible
>> inconsistency.
>
>
> I disagree.
>
> struct S
> {
>      const int x;
> }
>
> S s1; // x is 0
> S s2 = S(5); // x is 5
>
> Adding an initializer simply changes the default value from 0 to whatever
> you want.  It's quite consistent IMO.
>

Don't think it makes sense in non-POD structs...

Haven't tested, but is this an error?

struct S
{
    const int;

    this (int x)
    {
        this.x = x;    // here
    }
}

S(5);


Regards
--
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';