Struct no-arg constructor?

[monarch_dodra]

On Wednesday, 25 July 2012 at 10:40:22 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
> Static opCall isn't a solution. You can't new on it. And it 
> seems weird that you can disable something that don't possibly 
> exists in the first place.
>
> This topic comes back again and again on the NG, it have to be 
> considered.
>
> If I get a concrete example, let say RefCounted, I can see in 
> the source code that many checks are performed to handle the 
> case where the struct is .init . It have a runtime cost and 
> make the code more complex.
>
> It is more error prone because specific cases must be handled 
> all over the place. Having .init is certainly an interesting 
> capability of D, but in this specific case, it isn't sure it 
> worth it.

I think a good solution would be to simply allow structs to have 
a "no-argument constructor".

However, we'd have to hammer in the fact that this "no-argument 
constructor" is NOT a "default constructor" that always gets 
called. It is an explicit constructor, just like any other, but 
doesn't take any arguments.

It seems straight forward, simple and intuitive to me actually.