Feature request - simpler constructors

[Robert Fraser]

On the other hand, this way you could do some best things like requiring a particular subclass to be assigned to a sipreclass type (useful if you have two related class hierarchies.

Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:

> 
> "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 
> 
>