--- Comment #4 from Michel Nolard <michel.nol...@gmail.com> 2010-01-15 03:13:06
Ok. I clearly see your point now, and it is both practical and logical ... and
I agree ! This would be quite an improvement for a lot of situations.
What bothers me is this :
> To remove static opCall's completely is another subject...
In fact, your proposal - which is a good one - implies from "the opCall and
default constructor removal" problem to be solved at the same time.
Imagine someone relying upon the constructor removal "feature" you depict and
who would not be able to make things work in a new version. This can not be
admitted. Both problems must definitely be solved and their solution's
integration be planned for the same release.
A case which needs clarification, by the way, is when the struct is
externalized to C which does not prohibits the default construction to be
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------