https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17954
--- Comment #4 from Steven Schveighoffer <[email protected]> --- That is exactly how I would describe "not much benefit". One less keyword that almost nobody is asking to have removed. I haven't seen much of a demand for using "init" anywhere except to mean what it currently means. This is not like "body," .init is used everywhere and pretty consistently. This is probably due to the fact that if you *do* define an init member, it breaks a lot of things, so you just don't do that. This proposal would formalize that into a more effective error and explanation. Even though I disagree that .init was a design mistake (I would argue in fact that init should have been a full keyword), it is impossible to go back to the beginning without considering the consequences. Like it or not, we have to consider the effect on existing code when changing the meaning of an existing term. --
