Time to kill T() as (sometimes) working T.init alias ?

[Dmitry Olshansky]

11/29/2012 9:12 PM, jerro пишет:
>> The original idea is that there should be *no such thing* as default
>> construction of a struct as being anything other than T.init. The
>> default construction of a struct should be a compile time creature,
>> not a runtime one.
>>
>> Any methods or workarounds to try and make T() produce something
>> different from T.init is bad D practice. The compiler tries to
>> statically head them off, but probably should do a better job of that.
>
> The only reason to associate no parameter constructors with default
> values is because of how C++ works. There is no reason why
>
> Foo foo;                          (1)
>
> should be equivalent to
>
> auto foo = Foo();                 (2)
>
> in D. We could allow constructors with no parameters and make (1)
> equivalent to
>
> auto foo = Foo.init;              (3)
>
> The current workaround when one wants (2) to construct the object at
> runtime is to define a static opCall, but that's messy and inconsistent.
> It's just one more quirk one needs to learn to effectively use the
> language.

Yup. It looks like a poorly copied syntactic carry-over from C++ that 
doesn't quite make sense in the presence of T.init.

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky