WTF! new in class is static?!?!

[DigitalDesigns]

On Thursday, 7 June 2018 at 23:08:22 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> On 6/7/18 6:58 PM, DigitalDesigns wrote:
>> On Thursday, 7 June 2018 at 21:57:17 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
>> wrote:
>>> On 6/7/18 5:07 PM, DigitalDesigns wrote:
>>>> class A;
>>>>
>>>> class B
>>>> {
>>>>     A a = new A();
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> auto b1 = new B();
>>>> auto b2 = new B();
>>>>
>>>> assert(b1.a == b2.a)!!
>>>
>>> Yep, long-standing issue: 
>>> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2947
>>>
>>> Almost a decade old!
>>>
>> 
>> wait! everyone is saying it is a feature! So, which is it, a 
>> feature or a bug?!?!?
>
> It's a feature that you can assign a static initializer to a 
> class or struct member and have that work at compile time 
> (using CTFE).
>
> But when it's a reference to mutable data, it's a bug. Just the 
> idea that you have implicitly shared data if you create 
> instances in multiple threads should make it obviously a bug.
>
> Even back then it was a debate, look at the bug report. But 
> it's definitely a bug. Just hard to close since it will 
> probably break a lot of code.
>
> -Steve

I would expect that using a static initialize would not break as 
much code going from immutable to mutable than the other way 
around. Someone should have been smart enough to create a static 
new so both methods could have been implemented in a sane way.