DIP 1004 Preliminary Review Round 1

[Basile B. via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 1 May 2017 at 16:08:36 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On Monday, 1 May 2017 at 15:33:47 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
>> On Monday, 1 May 2017 at 14:55:28 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
>>> DIP 1004 is titled "Inherited Constructors. [...]
>>> All review-related feedback on and discussion of the DIP 
>>> should occur in this thread. [...]
>>> Destroy!
>>
>> An obvious omission in the syntax variations [1]
>>
>> - alias this() = super.this();
>>
>> or
>>
>> - alias this = super.this;
>
> I thought people would catch on that this is implied. :) The 
> old-style or new-style alias syntax should both be allowed, in 
> my opinion. The main issue is what to do about the parentheses, 
> whether to include them or not.

Then i have nothing to say and you can count me as a supporter of 
this DIP. As a personal matter i don't even care about the 
problem that's to have the ability to select a restricted set 
among the __ctors of the base.

About protection attributes i think that the rules applied to OOP 
should be followed. Private __ctors can only be inherited in 
derived if derived is in the same module, otherwise not. 
Protected and public __ctors can always be inherited. Package 
__ctors can be inherited in the same package.

Note that i always wondered why in the first place constructors 
and destructors were not designed to be virtual functions, like 
in other languages...