dmd 1.070 and 2.055 release

[Simen Kjaeraas]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 16:43:36 +0200, Steven Schveighoffer  
<schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote:

> While I agree a nested "@disable this" struct inside a struct should  
> disable default construction of the outer struct, a class *requires*  
> initialization, and a default constructor is called explicitly (and can  
> be defined!)  We are talking two different worlds here.
>
> I think the above should be accepted.  I'm not sure how feasible it is,  
> since it requires code path analysis.

What do you mean analysis? What's needed is checking 'did this class
explicitly implement a default ctor?'. Te other test ('is the struct
properly initialized?' is already performed for other constructors,
so should pose no huge impediment.

-- 
   Simen