Suggestion: shortcut for 'new X'

[Sean Kelly]

Chris Nicholson-Sauls wrote:
> Kristian wrote:
>> How about this:
>>
>>     Obj obj1 = new Obj;
>>     Obj obj2 = new Obj(10);
>>
>> could be reduced to:
>>
>>     Obj obj1 = new;
>>     Obj obj2 = new(10);
>>
>> This way only one class name would be required per variable. (That is, 
>> one  at maximum: "Obj obj1 = new, obj2 = new(10);" is also valid of 
>> course.)  Redundance would be reduced.
>>
>> I know, it looked quite 'odd' for me too at first, but now it looks 
>> very  natural, and even clearer than the longer way.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure if using of this syntax should be possible outside the  
>> variable declarations. Later in a code "obj1 = new;" is less 
>> informative  than "obj1 = new Obj;". However, someone may like it 
>> too... it's up to a  programmer how to code (which is not always a 
>> good thing(tm) though).
> 
> Would this pose any ambiguities with custom class allocators?

I was wondering the same thing, but I think it could be resolved via 
look-ahead.  That said, I'm not sure I like the syntax as it seems a bit 
confusing.  Is it really so hard to specify the type name?


Sean