What is the case against a struct post-blit default constructor?

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 11:43:53 monarch_dodra wrote:
> But are you telling is that the "opCall trick" is now official
> sanctioned as the way of initializing things that may need
> initialization, even though no arguments are passed?

I believe that it has been that way for ages. There's really no other way to 
do it unless you provide another function that does exactly the same thing, 
which. e.g.

auto s = constructS();

And I don't see how that buys you anything over using static opCall.

- Jonathan M Davis