http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8703



--- Comment #3 from Kenji Hara <k.hara...@gmail.com> 2012-09-21 18:57:04 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #0)
> > This code should fail to compile, but doesn't.
> > 
> > struct S
> > {
> >     @disable this();
> > }
> > void main()
> > {
> >     auto s = S();
> > }
> 
> Actually it is consistent with current D implementation (whether you like it 
> or
> not). The root of this issue is that S() is neither "implicit constructor" nor
> struct literal - it is default initializer for struct. Currently structs can 
> be
> initialized at runtime by four methods: default initializer, struct literal,
> constructor or opCall. In the example you block ctor but not default
> initializer. This is why S() works, but S.__ctor() as expected doesn't.

Yes, that's my point. In current S() represents default initializer, but I
think it is invalid, because S has a constructor efen if it has no parameter
and @disable.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to