Eliminate "new" for class object creation?

[Denis Koroskin]

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 02:38:13 +0400, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:

> I'm having a hard time justifying that you use
>
> new X(args)
>
> to create a class object, and
>
> X(args)
>
> to create a struct object. I wrote this:
>
> ============
> The syntactic  difference between  the expression creating  a @struct@
> object---Test(@\meta{args}@)@---and the  expression creating a @class@
> object---\cc{new Test(}\meta{args}@)@---may be  jarring at first. \dee
> could have dropped the @new@  keyword entirely, but that @new@ reminds
> the programmer that an object allocation (i.e., nontrivial work) takes
> place.
> ===============
>
> I'm unhappy about that explanation because the distinction is indeed  
> very weak. The constructor of a struct could also do unbounded amounts  
> of work, so what gives?
>
> I hereby suggest we get rid of new for class object creation. What do  
> you guys think?
>
>
> Andrei

This is tricky. How would you explain that the following

Test test;

initializes a variable if it is struct, but doesn't initialize if it's a  
class?
(*hint* non-nullable and explicit initialization *hint*)

test.foo(); // why is my newly-created class object segfaulting but struct  
doesn't?