On Friday, 17 January 2014 at 08:13:05 UTC, Namespace wrote:
On Friday, 17 January 2014 at 03:02:57 UTC, inout wrote:
On Friday, 17 January 2014 at 02:52:15 UTC, bearophile wrote:
deadalnix:
Most object don't have a sensible init value. That is just
hiding the problem under the carpet.
If there's desire to solve this problem I think that
improving the type system to avoid nulls where they are not
desired is better than having an init object.
So aren't not-nullable pointers and references a better
solution?
Bye,
bearophile
This! Also, if anything, it's better to turn `init` into a
method
rather than an object. The following would work all of a
sudden:
class Foo
{
Bar bar = new Bar();
int i = 42;
Foo() {
assert(bar !is null);
assert(i == 42);
}
// auto-generated
private final void init(Foo foo) {
foo.bar = new Bar();
foo.i = 42;
}
}
That would be indeed a nice solution and would break AFAIK
nothing. :)
But IMO even better would be something like this:
----
class A {
int id;
this(int id) {
this.id = id;
}
static A init() {
return new A(42);
}
}
A a; /// <-- A a = A.init; --> A a = new A(42);
----
Define your own init method which initialize the object to not
null.
