http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9066
--- Comment #10 from Andrej Mitrovic <[email protected]> 2013-10-05 09:59:19 PDT --- (In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > > Your example wouldn't compile. > You can't default construct a class that defines a non-default constructor > even > though we do have implicit constructor inheritance. I'm not default-constructing a class in that example. > The rule here is very simple, if you define a constructor none is inherited. I see what you mean, that could work. Although I still want the ability to explicitly re-introduce base-class constructors via some syntax. So in essence we'll have: ----- class A { this(int); this(double); } class B : A { } // implicitly inherits ctors (very useful for Exception) ----- ----- class A { this(int); this(double); } class B : A { this(string); } // does *not* inherit ctors ----- I also want: ----- class A { this(int); this(double); } // inherit the this(int) ctor class B : A { this(string); alias super.this(int) this; } ----- However these two features can be implemented separately, so maybe we should split this up into two enhancement requests. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
