Defining a custom *constructor* (not initializer!)

[Era Scarecrow]

On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 09:18:11 UTC, David Nadlinger wrote:
> On Monday, 7 May 2012 at 07:28:18 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
>> Is this something that actually modifies the 'new' operator,  
>> or is it just a separate factory function that my code would  
>> need to switch to using?
>
> Doing it without a separate factory function (and maybe  
> disabling new along with it by protecting the constructor) is  
> not possible in D. However, I don't quite see what it would  
> gain you in the first place – besides potentially screwing up 
>  the semantics users expect from new…

  What is your objective? What are you trying to achieve? I keep 
getting the impression of you using a object factory and a static 
function to create your objects, which would give you more 
optional behavior but not using new directly.

class X {
   static X makeX() {
     X x;
     //make X or OOP descendant and return by whatever rules you 
need
     return x;
   }
}

  Too much control is worse than not enough control. When I was 
testing out C++11 and getting my hands dirty, bugs were easily 
introduced where if you had to control certain gritty details, 
all details had to be controlled for it to work. If you don't 
have to control it, go around it to a simpler although slightly 
longer solution.