[Issue 17954] init member should be disallowed

[d-bugmail at puremagic.com]

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17954

--- Comment #4 from Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy at yahoo.com> ---
That is exactly how I would describe "not much benefit". One less keyword that
almost nobody is asking to have removed. I haven't seen much of a demand for
using "init" anywhere except to mean what it currently means. This is not like
"body," .init is used everywhere and pretty consistently. This is probably due
to the fact that if you *do* define an init member, it breaks a lot of things,
so you just don't do that. This proposal would formalize that into a more
effective error and explanation.

Even though I disagree that .init was a design mistake (I would argue in fact
that init should have been a full keyword), it is impossible to go back to the
beginning without considering the consequences. Like it or not, we have to
consider the effect on existing code when changing the meaning of an existing
term.

--