On Saturday, 11 June 2022 at 01:52:58 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
People getting bit by `new` in field initialization often enough that I think a warning would be helpful.
The problem is so much bigger because it is not just a case of being aware not to use `new` in member initialisers. As you see in my second example in https://forum.dlang.org/post/ogvubzgprghefclgl...@forum.dlang.org there is no `new` anywhere. In fact you could say an effort has been made to do the right thing in `struct A` where the allocation has been moved to the constructor (a strategy that is not always available because structs don’t have default constructors) yet we fell into the same trap.
My point is that this problem can be buried deep down under multiple layers and you can’t really ever be sure that there isn’t a problem in your massive code base.
But any such warnings need to be enabled by default to be useful, and must have an off switch for people who don't need them. So the question in each case would be, where's the line between helpful and annoying?
So that’s why I used “why” in the title of this thread, which I haven’t seen an answer to yet. What is the practical case where that warning would be annoying? When would you actually want this behaviour?
— Bastiaan.
