On Monday, 9 April 2018 at 14:11:35 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
On Monday, 9 April 2018 at 11:15:14 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
Not semantically, but you might consider it a performance bug.
This particular one could be fixed, put I cannot say how messy
the details are.
There is potential for code that silently relies on the
behavior and would break in very non-obvious ways if we fixed
If the fix causes non-obvious breakage, then why not a DIP for
an opInit that overrides the default initialization and has the
desired new functionality?
Though it would be annoying to have two ways of doing the same
It's not worth a DIP.
You can write a static initializer function and pass it a