var.init change

[Max Vohra]

It seems from that post that the change caused more problems than it fixed, I thought it was a very good feature of D, and one should really by using typeof(x).init if that's what is meant. It's far more logical to have int.init return the default initialization value of the int type, and have variable.init return the value in which the variable was initialized as. In any case, whether new way is here to stay, the page http://www.digitalmars.com/d/property.html should really be changed to reflect the standard, since inconstancy between documentation and implementation is annoying to say the least.

~Max

Chris Miller Wrote:

> "The .init property for a variable is now based on its type, not its  
> initializer."
> 
> Before this change,
>     int i = 42;
> int.init was 0 and i.init was 42. Now with the change, they're both 0.
> 
> 
> This var.init change sucks, because it silently broke a lot of my code.  
> I'm not the only one. The change was even applied to D 1.x.
> 
> Yes I can grep for it, but that's not enough. I have a lot of D code  
> hiding in dark corners waiting to be used. If the compiler jumped out and  
> told me I made a mistake, then I could at least see what's going on and  
> fix it; but as it is now, it just silently and happily continues, with  
> unintended values.
> 
> Plus, to work around it, I'll have to write a lot of constants that take  
> the place of the init and switch to them throughout the code.
> 
> The way I would have rather gone with .init is just keep the old way and  
> deny .init for variables that were initialized with non-constant  
> expressions.
> 
> A more code-friendly way, that fits in better with existing code that was  
> coded for both the old and new var.init styles, is to completely deny  
> .init for variables; only allow it on types. At least I can catch the  
> issues, in both var.init cases (e.g. if my code relied on i.init being 42,  
> or if I relied on i.init being 0)!
> 
> Then, perhaps another property could be added specifically for variable  
> initializers, like the old style .init but just for constant initializers.  
> The old behavior, or this new property proposal, is very handy; it lets  
> you avoid writing constants for many cases. Isn't this the spirit of D? I  
> believe some sample code even used to brag about this feature.
> 
> - Chris