What is the case against a struct post-blit default constructor?
see at klickverbot.at
Fri Oct 12 02:49:48 PDT 2012
On Friday, 12 October 2012 at 09:42:19 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
> That sounds like a decent solution to me, but I think that
> there's a good
> chance that Walter would reject it on principle (since in
> general, skipping
> the invariant pretty much defeats the purpose of having one).
But he already suggested implementing a _custom_ mechanism for
skipping the invariant somewhere else in this thread (i.e. a
"valid" flag) which is arguably even worse…
More information about the Digitalmars-d