Counterproposal for extending static members and constructors

[David Piepgrass]

On Thursday, 12 July 2012 at 17:35:51 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 06:25:03PM +0200, David Piepgrass wrote:
>> I'm putting this in a separate thread from
>> http://forum.dlang.org/thread/uufohvapbyceuaylostl@forum.dlang.org
>> because my counterproposal brings up a new issue, which could 
>> be
>> summarized as "Constructors Considered Harmful":
>> 
>> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8381
>
> So, if I understand your proposal correctly, you're essentially 
> saying
> that the ctor of a given class C may return a derived class of 
> C instead
> of just C itself?

No, it can also return a different class with the same name.

> Isn't this just the "object factory" pattern in disguise?

Is is a unification of syntax, just as UFCS is a unification of 
syntax. It solves multiple problems, including information 
hiding, and extending classes written by other parties.