no-arg constructor for structs (again)

[Don Clugston]

On 20/09/12 11:09, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Thursday, September 20, 2012 10:11:41 Felix Hufnagel wrote:
>> On Thursday, 20 September 2012 at 00:14:04 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
>>
>> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 20, 2012 00:12:04 Felix Hufnagel wrote:
>>>> isn't it even worse?
>>>>
>>>> import std.stdio;
>>>> struct S
>>>> {
>>>> int i;
>>>> this(void* p = null){this.i = 5;}
>>>> }
>>>> void main()
>>>> {
>>>> //S l(); //gives a linker error
>>>> auto k = S();
>>>> writeln(k.i); //prints 0
>>>> }
>>>
>>> Of course that generates a linker error. You just declared a
>>> function without
>>> a body.
>>>
>>> - Jonathan M Davis
>>
>> sure, but it's a bit unexpected. do we need to be able to declare
>> empty functions?
>
> It can be useful at module scope, and it would complicate the grammar to make
> it anything else at function scope, even if there's no practical reason to use
> it that way there. C/C++ (which doesn't have nested functions) also treats
> that declaration as a function declaration.
>
>> but whats even more confusing: you are not allowed to declare an
>> no_arg constructor. but you are allowed to declare one where all
>> parameters have default parameters. but then, how to call it
>> without args? auto k = S(); doesn't work?
>
> It's a bug. I'm pretty sure that there's a bug report for it already, but I'd
> have to go digging for it to know which one it is.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Bug 3438