Eliminate "new" for class object creation?

[Chris Nicholson-Sauls]

Andrei Alexandrescu 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

What would become the equivalent of, for example:
	new uint[][][](4, 3, 8)

I can live with having to define API's for custom allocation strategies of classes and 
structures, rather than being able to hijack a language expression (the way one can with 
'new'/'delete'), but what about the non-class new'ables?

However, if we really must toss the 'new' keyword out the window, I reiterate my support 
for a 'T new(T,A...)(A a)' in the runtime.

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls