Eliminate "new" for class object creation?

[dsimcha]

== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org)'s article
> I'm having a hard time justifying that you use
> new X(args)
> to create a class object, and
> X(args)
> to create a struct object. I wrote this:
> ============
> The syntactic  difference between  the expression creating  a @struct@
> object---Test(@\meta{args}@)@---and the  expression creating a @class@
> object---\cc{new Test(}\meta{args}@)@---may be  jarring at first. \dee
> could have dropped the @new@  keyword entirely, but that @new@ reminds
> the programmer that an object allocation (i.e., nontrivial work) takes
> place.
> ===============
> I'm unhappy about that explanation because the distinction is indeed
> very weak. The constructor of a struct could also do unbounded amounts
> of work, so what gives?
> I hereby suggest we get rid of new for class object creation. What do
> you guys think?
> Andrei

Absolutely.  I've thought this for a while but hesitated to bring it up because I
felt it was a bikeshed issue.  Now that I think of it, though, it would have the
substantive benefit of making it easier to switch from structs to classes if you
suddenly realize you need polymorphism, or from classes to structs if you suddenly
realize you need value semantics.  I really can't see any downside other than the
loss of static opCall for classes, which doesn't have tons of good use cases anyhow.