On 25-02-2012 05:05, bearophile wrote:
This program comes from a reduction of a bug I've found:


struct Foo {
     void init() {}
}
void main() {
     Foo*[] foos;
     //(*foos[0]).init(); // OK
     foos[0].init(); // Error: function expected before (), not null of type 
Foo*
}


What do you think about the idea of not allowing methods named init() in 
structs? (Especially if they are a @property). Or maybe there is a better 
solution, opinions welcome.

Bye,
bearophile

IMHO we shouldn't allow having *any* members that use the same name as any of the compiler-provided properties/functions.

--
- Alex

Reply via email to