On 11/25/2012 05:47 PM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
After killing this ugly craft the suggestion is to, of course, introduce
0-argument constructors.
I think it should be done, but then it is even less clear how .init
should work.
static opCall can't prevent introduction of 0-arg constructor as the compiler
already has to disambiguate between the static opCall and the ctor. (BTW which
one wins?)
It does not disambiguate.
I think constructors and static opCall should just overload against each
other,
The current behaviour in case there are both opCall and constructors is
to attempt to pick opCall in case the number of arguments is zero and
the constructors otherwise.
...
Thoughts?
1. is valid.
2./3. are examples of insufficient template constraints.
If the suggestion is to get rid of the built-in struct 0-arg default
constructor iff the user provides his own constructors, as is done with
the more than 0-arg default constructors, then I fully agree.
