On Friday, 10 June 2022 at 07:46:36 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
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`.
Yes, I understand that the compiler can't do what I was expecting
it to do, it was a mistake.
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.
It's not the same thing, therefore I was hoping to see a use case
for it -- but just because I'm curious; Preventing the mistake is
my main 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?"
That would be fine too. By the way, if there is
something-in-docs, I don't think it is prominent enough...
-- Bastiaan.
