[Issue 5715] New: Contradiction in spec: meaning of variable.init

[d-bugmail at puremagic.com]

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5715

           Summary: Contradiction in spec: meaning of variable.init
           Product: D
           Version: D1 & D2
          Platform: All
               URL: http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/property.html#init
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Keywords: spec
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: websites
        AssignedTo: nobody at puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: smjg at iname.com
            Blocks: 677


--- Comment #0 from Stewart Gordon <smjg at iname.com> 2011-03-07 06:58:04 PST ---
"If applied to a variable or field, it is the default initializer for that
variable or field. For example:

int a;
int b = 1;
typedef int t = 2;
t c;
t d = cast(t)3;

int.init    // is 0
a.init        // is 0
b.init        // is 0
t.init        // is 2
c.init        // is 2
d.init        // is 2"

According to the prose, b.init == 1.  But this claims it is 0.  Similarly with
d.

I recall the semantics being changed at some point from the initial value of
the variable to that of its type.  This matches the examples, but not what the
statement actually says.  Possible rewrite of that paragraph:

".init produces a constant expression that is the default initializer. If
applied to a type, it is the default initializer for that type. If applied to a
variable, it is the default initializer for the variable's type.  If applied to
a field, it is the default initializer for that field.  For example:"

Moreover, is the meaning for a field meant to apply only to type.field
constructions, or to object.field constructions as well?

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------