static opCall 'hidden' by incompatible constructors

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d]

On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 17:11:29 UTC, Nick Treleaven wrote:
> I want to add a static opCall with no arguments to simulate a 
> nullary-argument constructor.

Please don't do it unless you have a _very_ compelling use case.

> As nullary static opCall doesn't conflict with a nullary 
> constructor (as the latter can't exist), it would be useful to 
> allow it. Otherwise, how can we wrap the construction of a 
> class with a nullary constructor?

It has never worked properly (opCall never got called) and being 
a bad style going against language design rationale it was 
completely banned. More info: 
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12124

I believe CTFE-only default struct constructors should be allowed 
instead but until this becomes an option, having factory 
functions is the way to go ("auto var = unique(new T)" vs 
"Unique!T var = new T")

I am pretty sure many D users will disagree though :)