is it bug?

[BBaz via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Friday, 30 January 2015 at 13:56:17 UTC, anonymous wrote:
> On Friday, 30 January 2015 at 13:39:05 UTC, BBaz wrote:
>> On Friday, 30 January 2015 at 13:34:57 UTC, drug wrote:
>>> On 30.01.2015 16:31, BBaz wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 30 January 2015 at 12:32:05 UTC, drug wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  static init()
>>>>>  {
>>>>>      auto instance = new typeof(this)();
>>>>>      instance._cont = new Container();
>>>>>      return instance;
>>>>>  }
>>>>
>>>> have you tried
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>    static typeof(this) init()
>>>>    {
>>>>        auto instance = new typeof(this)();
>>>>        instance._cont = new Container();
>>>>        return instance;
>>>>    }
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> because currently either "void" or a type is missing.
>>>>
>>> Type is inferred automatically.
>>
>> right, i've forgot that init() is a >>built-in<< property.
>> But it seemsthat i'm not the only one...
>
> I think that doesn't matter here. Still works fine if you name 
> it something other than "init". I don't know if this works as 
> designed, or if an "auto" return type should be required.
>
> Besides, it's a bad idea to call a member "init", because it 
> steals the name of the default initializer. It doesn't override 
> the default initializer, it just takes its name. The compiler 
> should not accept it, in my opinion.

Yes, that was the point: "bad idea to call a member "init".
But I've missed something with inference of return type...
let's call this the "BMS" : big-mouth-syndrom...

I didn't know it could be ommitted...I thought it could be if the 
function has the'@safe'attribute...

Sorry drug, BMS...