What's left to do for a stable D2?

[grauzone]

Simen kjaeraas wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 15:12:47 +0100, grauzone <none at example.net> wrote:
> 
>> Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
>>> grauzone Wrote:
>>>
>>>> Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
>>>>> Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
>>>>>>> Jesse Phillips Wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jason House wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andrei's finishing his last TDPL chapter, Sean is updating 
>>>>>>>>> std.thread(?), and Walter's been fixing forward reference and 
>>>>>>>>> CTFE bugs. What's left?
>>>>>>>> This page[1] has been getting regular updates, so it should do a 
>>>>>>>> good
>>>>>>>> job answering the question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. 
>>>>>>>> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel#FutureDirections 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From this list: default struct constructors?
>>>>>> Walter doesn't want. This will go down as one of the larger 
>>>>>> language incapabilities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrei
>>>>> Sigh...
>>>> Why can't you just use opCall?
>>>  It's ugly, doesn't work sometimes and is inconsistent with other 
>>> constructors.
>>
>> Why doesn't it work, bugs?
>> Use opCall instead of constructor in the other cases too?
>> Are there cases where ctors can do something opCall can't? I thought 
>> constructors were only added for symmetry with dtors.
> 
> Take this for example:
> 
> struct S {
>   int n;
>   this( ) {
>     n = random( );
>   }
> }
> 
> class C {
>   S s;
> }
> 
> In C++, 'new C( );' would call S's constructor, and initialize n to
> some random number. opCall can do the same thing, but must be
> explicitly called in C's constructor. This can be unacceptable for
> libraries, at least.
> 

Yes, but ctors with empty argument list aren't coming to D anyway.