Feature request - simpler constructors

[Ary Manzana]

Bill Baxter escribió:
> Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> "Bill Baxter" wrote
>>> I like the idea but I'm not wild about the syntax you've chosen.  I'd 
>>> like to be able to read off the types of the parameters from the 
>>> function signature without having to dig around in the class for 
>>> where the memebers are defined.  What about something like prefixing 
>>> the name with a dot?
>>>
>>>
>>>    this(int .year, int .month, int .day, int .hour, int .minute, int 
>>> .second)
>>
>> Personally, I like Janice's idea better.  It should be up to the IDE 
>> to tell you what the types are for the constructor.
>>
>> Imagine a situation like this:
>>
>> class X
>> {
>>    int y;
>>    this(int .y) {}
>> }
>>
>> Now the author decides y should be a long:
>>
>> class X
>> {
>>    long y;
>>    this(int .y) {}
>> }
>>
>> Oops, forgot to update the constructor.  But the compiler won't 
>> complain because this.y = y is valid.  With Janice's syntax, this 
>> doesn't happen.
>>
>> -Steve
> 
> I guess the main worry lurking in the back of my mind is that we may 
> actually want to use auto in parameter lists someday

Well, it could be the keyword "this", and it also has a closer meaning 
to what's actually done.

class Point {

   int x;
   int y;

   this(this x, this y) {
   }

}