Defining a custom *constructor* (not initializer!)

[Mehrdad]

On Thursday, 31 May 2012 at 10:58:51 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 03:25:40 -0400, Mehrdad 
> <wfunction at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, 11 May 2012 at 15:23:10 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
>> wrote:
>>> I'll wait for an answer before thinking more about this.  It 
>>> feels imminently solvable...
>>>
>>> -Steve
>>
>> Did you come across any ideas? :)
>
> Sorry lost track of this.  I'll think about it again.
>
> -Steve

o lol. ok.

Do you think it'd be difficult to add an extra layer of 
indirection for calling the current "constructors"/finalizers? I 
feel like, if DMD would just look for a __construct and a 
__destroy static method instead of directly calling the 
constructor/finalizer, it'd all work out nicely...