null [re: spec#]

[dsimcha]

== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound2 at digitalmars.com)'s article
> Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > How hard would it really be to insert code wherever a struct's init value is
> > used to default construct it either when the program starts up (for globals) or
> > right after it's declared (for locals)? If you could do that, then I don't see
> > why we couldn't have proper default constructors. All I can assume is that
> > adding that extra code to default construct structs would be painful change to
> > make to dmd, but perhaps there's something else that I'm missing. If that could
> > be done though, it would be a _huge_ improvement.
> There are some severe problems with that approach. One of the largest is the
> possibility that the default constructor may fail (throw an exception). This has
> a vast impact on the design of things, and wrecks a lot of generic code that
> relies on being able to guarantee initialization success.

While I'm also skeptical of the idea that simply declaring a variable can cause
arbitrarily complex code to be executed, I'll play Devil's Advocate a little:
What if we required the default struct constructor to be nothrow?  We could also
require some level of purity (at least weak pure).