== Quote from Denis Koroskin ([email protected])'s article > On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 11:38:50 +0300, Andrei Alexandrescu > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Don wrote: > >> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > >>> Eldar Insafutdinov wrote: > >>>> Jesse Phillips Wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Jason House wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Andrei's finishing his last TDPL chapter, Sean is updating > >>>>>> std.thread(?), and Walter's been fixing forward reference and CTFE > >>>>>> bugs. What's left? > >>>>> This page[1] has been getting regular updates, so it should do a good > >>>>> job answering the question. > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. > >>>>> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?LanguageDevel#FutureDirections > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> From this list: default struct constructors? > >>> > >>> Walter doesn't want. This will go down as one of the larger language > >>> incapabilities. > >>> > >>> Andrei > >> What's the reason? Does he dislike the concept, or feel it's a > >> implementation disaster, or something else? > > > > There are concerns about implementation difficulty and also about > > muddying other parts of the language, e.g. T.init may fail. > > > > Andrei > I strongly believe D should get rid of T.init; I hope I'll find some time > to write a proposal and a rationale for it.
Are you suggesting that we just get different syntax for it, or is the suggestion deeper? I don't think there's any chance of us getting rid of default initializers this late in the game, and I think it's absolutely essential for generic code that there be an easy way to get the default initializer for a type.
