On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 16:43:36 +0200, Steven Schveighoffer
<[email protected]> wrote:
While I agree a nested "@disable this" struct inside a struct should
disable default construction of the outer struct, a class *requires*
initialization, and a default constructor is called explicitly (and can
be defined!) We are talking two different worlds here.
I think the above should be accepted. I'm not sure how feasible it is,
since it requires code path analysis.
What do you mean analysis? What's needed is checking 'did this class
explicitly implement a default ctor?'. Te other test ('is the struct
properly initialized?' is already performed for other constructors,
so should pose no huge impediment.
--
Simen
