The case of &T.init

[Marco Leise via Digitalmars-d]

I was wondering why T.init is treated as a manifest constant.
Don't all .init's end up in some data segment with a
resolvable address ?

In std.conv we have:

---

//emplace helper functions
private ref T emplaceInitializer(T)(ref T chunk) @trusted pure nothrow
{
    static if (!hasElaborateAssign!T && isAssignable!T)
        chunk = T.init;
    else
    {
        import core.stdc.string : memcpy;
        static immutable T init = T.init;
        memcpy(&chunk, &init, T.sizeof);
    }
    return chunk;
}

---

It seems wasteful to create duplicates of .init, so it would
be nice if one could just write:

  import core.stdc.string : memcpy;
  memcpy(&chunk, &T.init, T.sizeof);

Likewise it would be nice to get the a class's .init[] slice
at compile-time.

-- 
Marco