On Friday, 10 June 2022 at 07:35:17 UTC, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
Is there a use case where this makes sense? I would have much appreciated the compiler slapping me on the fingers, but it doesn't. I understand that it is safe and that the compiler can allow this, but why would anyone want that? D-scanner does not check for this either.
Any initialization of a member field is overriding the field's `.init` value for the type. If a dynamic allocation set a different value per instance, then you'd have inconsistent behavior with, e.g., `int a = 5`.
I think a helpful error message would be: "Error: The initializer `A(5)` allocates memory that is shared among all instances of `S`. If you want that, make `S.a` `static`."
I understand that it's not something that people expect, but making it an error can't be the answer. And making it a static field is not the same thing.
I think this is a case where having a warning that's on by default, and which can be explicitly disabled, is useful. "Blah blah .init blah blah. See link-to-something-in-docs. Is this what you intended?"
