On Wednesday, 10 October 2012 at 09:48:27 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
[SNIP]
- Jonathan M Davis
After thinking about it, a lot, I think that would actually be
the correct solution. I was an advocate of the "no-arg"
constructor (not necessarily default), but I think it would end
up being ambiguous in things like "emplace(&t)": "Do you want
.init, or .__ctor()?"
This, I think makes sense:
T t; //T.init
T t = T(); //opCall
As for "new()", one can just two line it:
p = new T(); //T.init
p = T(); //opCall
It takes two lines, but it makes a perfect distinction between
.init and T().
--------
But are you telling is that the "opCall trick" is now official
sanctioned as the way of initializing things that may need
initialization, even though no arguments are passed?
Can I roll it out in std.container? In RefCounted? In random?
They are all "payload" structs, and they are in desperate need of
some formal way to say:
"I want you initialized with your payloads and ready for use, but
I have nothing to give you."
