DMD 1.017 release

[Chris Nicholson-Sauls]

Stewart Gordon wrote:
> "Walter Bright" <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
> news:f5s1k1$iuk$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> Chris Nicholson-Sauls wrote:
>>> Valid logic, but what about the common case of 'int f = 42;'?  Maybe 
>>> the rule should be that .init is either a /literal/ initializer's 
>>> value, or a CTF initializer's value, or else the type's .init value.  
>>> (I can recall having once or twice relied on a variable's .init being 
>>> something particular.)
>>
>> How about, if it isn't a compile time constant, then using .init is an 
>> error?
> 
> Good idea.  It would also enable
> 
>    is(typeof(x.init))
> 
> to be used to test whether x's initializer is a compile-time constant. 
> Don't know what practical use this would have though....

I think it would be useful in relation to what you mention below...

>> I think that if CTFE fails, having it silently revert to the 
>> type.init, would be frustratingly obscure behavior.
> 
> Agreed.  Moreover, if they want the initializer of x's type, they can 
> use typeof(x).init.  So changing x.init to do the same not only alters 
> the behaviour of existing code, but gains no real benefit in the process.
> 
> Stewart.

Bingo.  So it gets my vote.  And to explain the first comment:
template TInit (alias var) {
   static if (is(typeof(var.init))) { const TInit =        var .init; }
          else                      { const TInit = typeof(var).init; }
}

For those occasions where you want the old-style behavior for whatever 
reason.  :)

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls