I think it's nice when you want to differentiate between making a struct/class object. Otherwise you'll end up doing:
C c; // This is a class object, not a struct! Unless something else like templated constructors could help with this, but I'm not sure what those are yet. :p On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 7:43 PM, bearophile <bearophileh...@lycos.com> wrote: > Daniel Gibson: >> Really? This is the first time I've heard about this. >> Why should it be removed anyway? > > It was discussed a lot, and some people were about OK with the idea. The > current new syntax is not nice looking, and maybe not necessary. The idea is > to remove all not necessary things from D2 (if their absence doesn't uglify > the code too much and doesn't reduce flexibility significantly). > > A problem is that to new you need to give three things: > - optional placement, where to put the data > - what type to allocate > - an optional list of arguments for the constructor > - and some people have asked for templated constructors, so this is the best > chance to introduce this. > > Bye, > bearophile >
