Is this really intended??

[claptrap]

On Sunday, 11 October 2020 at 22:11:48 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> On 10/11/20 5:50 PM, claptrap wrote:
>> On Sunday, 11 October 2020 at 18:57:55 UTC, Steven 
>> Schveighoffer wrote:
>>> On 10/10/20 8:16 PM, claptrap wrote:
>>
>> If there's a question of wasted effort initialising a member 
>> twice, the compiler should be able to elide the default 
>> initialiser, at least in simple cases the mechanism is already 
>> there.
>> 
>> They should be separate orthogonal rules.
>
> The default initializer is happening anyway -- the opAssign or 
> constructor is expecting it.

I didn't realise the default initialiser and constructor were 
separate required events. I thought default initialisation was 
enough, the constructors is there if you want something more than 
the default init.

I guess that the error message isn't very clear either since it 
talks about initialisation when really it's construction that is 
needed. I mean if the language is going to differentiate between 
initialisation and construction, the error message should be 
clear which one is missing.

In fact if the struct has no constructors it can only be default 
initialised anyway, so it's seems pointless for the compiler to 
require a constructor to be called when it's essentially a NOP.

I mean if the struct has no constructor, then it should be 
considered fully constructed after the default init.