On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 19:28:13 +0100
"Simen kjaeraas" <simen.kja...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You seems to take it for granted that I cannot write:
> > auto myExportedSymbol = new T();
> > ...
> > myExportedSymbol.i = 1;
> > but for me there is no obvious reason why D refuses that, and accepts
> > T myExportedSymbol;
> > static this () {
> > auto myExportedSymbol = new T();
> > ...
> > myExportedSymbol.i = 1;
> > }
> > It's the same thing, from my point of view: when I import the module, I
> > get the symbol correctly defined. I don't get why a module needs a
> > constructor: why else has it a top-level?
>
> The reason for this is partly historical (C does it this way), but more
> importantly, practical. This way it is obvious what code will be executed
> at which time, and code is not as easily 'hidden' between type and
> variable declarations.
Thank you, Simen, I get it better. I have a solution with static this anyway,
even if not completely satisfying. Simply tried to understand better the whys
and hows.
(And sorry all for the somewhat frustrated tone of a few posts by me.)
Denis
-- -- -- -- -- -- --
vit esse estrany ☣
spir.wikidot.com
