Counterproposal for extending static members and constructors

[deadalnix]

On 13/07/2012 01:42, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Thursday, July 12, 2012 21:23:56 Christophe Travert wrote:
>> "Jonathan M Davis" , dans le message (digitalmars.D:172156), a écrit :
>>> On Thursday, July 12, 2012 18:25:03 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
>>>
>>> I think that adding constructors to a type from an external source is
>>> downright evil. It breaks encapsulation. I should be able to constrain
>>> exactly how you construct my type. If you want to create a free function
>>> (e.g. a factory function) which uses my constructors, fine. But I'm
>>> completely against adding constructors externally.
>>
>> The proposal is not that add constructors. It is to create a free
>> function (.make!Type(args)), that can called like a constructor, by
>> writing Type(args). That does not break encapsulation.
>
> But it _does_ make it look like you're using a constructor when you're not,
> which I'm against regardless.
>
> In any case, std.container already declares a make which encapsulates
> constructing an object without caring whether it's a struct or class (since
> some containers are one and some another), which I intend to move to
> std.typecons and make work with all types. That seems a lot more useful to me
> than trying to make a function act like a constructor when it's not - though I
> guess that as long as you imported std.typecons, I would just be providing the
> free function that your little constructor faking scheme needs.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

+1