On Saturday, 2 January 2016 at 14:57:58 UTC, Shriramana Sharma
wrote:
John Colvin wrote:
Strictly speaking you aren't calling a constructor there,
you're writing a struct literal.
Why do you say I'm not calling a constructor?
A class constructor is written as:
auto s = *new* Timespan(1, 2);
And that still doesn't answer the question of why can't we have
an automatic field-wise constructor for classes...
Probably because the inheritance:
class C1 { int x, y; }
class C2 : C1 { int z; }
How the C2 default memberwise constructor would look like? new
C2(x, y)? or new C2(x, y, z)? What if x and y are private or
reintroduced as public members in C2?
I think a default memberwise constructor for classes will break
the encapsulation paradigm of OOP programming.
