On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 01:23:21PM +0100, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote: > 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. [...]
Agreed. T -- Marketing: the art of convincing people to pay for what they didn't need before which you can't deliver after.