dmd 1.070 and 2.055 release

[Timon Gehr]

On 09/12/2011 05:10 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 10:50:49 -0400, Simen Kjaeraas
> <simen.kjaras at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I mean the compiler has to verify a constructor is called for the member
> struct in the class constructor.
>
> You also must define a constructor of some kind (does not have to be a
> no-arg ctor), because the compiler generated default constructor cannot
> call the default constructor of the struct.
>
> Maybe it's easy, but I have no idea, hence "I'm not sure" :)
>
> -Steve

The compiler already checks that for non-default class constructors, so 
the change would probably be very easy to carry out.