On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 04:08:36PM +0000, Andrej Mitrovic via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Monday, 1 May 2017 at 15:33:47 UTC, Basile B. wrote: > > On Monday, 1 May 2017 at 14:55:28 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: > > > DIP 1004 is titled "Inherited Constructors. [...] > > > All review-related feedback on and discussion of the DIP should > > > occur in this thread. [...] > > > Destroy! > > > > An obvious omission in the syntax variations [1] > > > > - alias this() = super.this(); > > > > or > > > > - alias this = super.this; > > I thought people would catch on that this is implied. :) The old-style > or new-style alias syntax should both be allowed, in my opinion. The > main issue is what to do about the parentheses, whether to include > them or not.
I don't think new-style syntax is supported for `alias X this;`. I vaguely remember in the original discussions when new-style alias syntax was first introduced, that we decided against allowing `alias this = X;` because alias this held a special meaning that's different from the usual alias declaration, so the fact that they now have different syntaxes was seen as an advantage. T -- Тише едешь, дальше будешь.
