Operator precedence of "new"

[Stanislav Blinov]

  15.10.2010 17:07, Stanislav Blinov пишет:
>  15.10.2010 16:12, bearophile пишет:
>> Currently to call a method to a newly build object/struct you need:
>>
>> (new Foo).bar();
>>
>> But isn't it better to change the D operator precedence rules a bit 
>> and allow new to bind more closely than the method call, to allow a 
>> syntax like:
>>
>> new Foo.bar();
>>
>> Do you see bad side effects in this D2 change?
>>
> Aside from what was already mentioned about nested classes:
> What if bar() is a static function of Foo? Current precedence allows 
> the compiler to bug you if you write
>
> new Foo.bar();
>
> If precedence is modified in the way you propose, then you effectively 
> get a call to static function through an instance (which in itself is 
> valid operation), though that instance is immediately thrown away.
>

Forgot to mention the 'bad' side:
Despite you actually do throw instance away as a result of such call, in 
case of non-static method it is done intentionally and with keeping in 
mind precisely what does Foo's ctor do, while in case of static call 
instance construction may be unexpected and lead to subtle 
difficult-to-trace bugs.