On 10/13/17 9:23 AM, rikki cattermole wrote:
On 13/10/2017 2:07 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 10/13/17 9:04 AM, rikki cattermole wrote:
Lets just kill it.
It's an ugly unexpected piece of syntax.
It may be used somewhere, and then what is the migration path for
those people? I don't see that it's harming anything having it there,
most of us didn't even know about it.
1) Warning, then actual removal. It'll still be available for a few
releases for people to update their code
2) Fairly simple replacement: new Foo(0)
It's not that simple:
void foo(alias x)()
{
x(0); // can't replace this with x(Foo(0))
}
void bar(int x);
void baz(Foo x ...);
foo!bar();
foo!baz();
It's also not necessary to remove the feature in order to build a
library that does similar things, and the syntax isn't needed elsewhere.
It is bizarre, though, that it works only for classes and builtins,
and not for structs.
I have experienced with Swift the team killing "ugly" features, and
it's painful.
And yet I expected the 0 there to be null. It would make a whole lot
more sense then allocating a new instance which is considerably more
expensive operation and not even used anywhere else!
0 does not implicitly cast to null in D.
I would have expected a stack allocation of the object. That would be
consistent with other typesafe variadics:
void foo(int[] x ...);
foo(1, 2, 3); // allocate array on the stack
It even says in the spec that storing the class reference somewhere else
is a bad idea because it *could* allocate on the stack.
-Steve
