Feature request - simpler constructors

[Steven Schveighoffer]

"Bill Baxter" wrote
> I like the idea but I'm not wild about the syntax you've chosen.  I'd like 
> to be able to read off the types of the parameters from the function 
> signature without having to dig around in the class for where the memebers 
> are defined.  What about something like prefixing the name with a dot?
>
>
>    this(int .year, int .month, int .day, int .hour, int .minute, int 
> .second)

Personally, I like Janice's idea better.  It should be up to the IDE to tell 
you what the types are for the constructor.

Imagine a situation like this:

class X
{
   int y;
   this(int .y) {}
}

Now the author decides y should be a long:

class X
{
   long y;
   this(int .y) {}
}

Oops, forgot to update the constructor.  But the compiler won't complain 
because this.y = y is valid.  With Janice's syntax, this doesn't happen.

-Steve