• Matthew (5/5) Mar 08 2005 Are these still not in the language?
• John Reimer (4/13) Mar 08 2005 I totally agree. I vote that struct ctors be added to D. We have them
• Andrew Fedoniouk (11/17) Mar 08 2005 struct size
• John Reimer (10/25) Mar 08 2005 This is the known stop-gap solution. I don't think this solution would
• Andrew Fedoniouk (2/6) Mar 08 2005 I agree. Again: "A bit ugly but works".

"Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> writes:

Are these still not in the language?

Was the argument against them that if they have ctors people will want 
dtors? Or something else?

In any case, I'd be quite prepared to have ctors and no dtors. Or to 
only allow ctors if the members are fundamental, etc. etc.

John Reimer <brk_6502 yahoo.com> writes:

Matthew wrote:
 Are these still not in the language?
 
 Was the argument against them that if they have ctors people will want 
 dtors? Or something else?
 
 In any case, I'd be quite prepared to have ctors and no dtors. Or to 
 only allow ctors if the members are fundamental, etc. etc.
 
 

I totally agree. I vote that struct ctors be added to D.  We have them 
for modules, why not for struct?

-JJR

"Andrew Fedoniouk" <news terrainformatica.com> writes:

struct size
{
  int x, y;
  static size opCall( int x, int y ) { size p; p.x = x; p.y = y; return p; }
}

size zs = size(2,3);

A bit ugly but works.

I like the idea of strongly distinguishing structs from classes, though.

Andrew.


"Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote in message 
news:d0lhns$pdc$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Are these still not in the language?

 Was the argument against them that if they have ctors people will want 
 dtors? Or something else?

 In any case, I'd be quite prepared to have ctors and no dtors. Or to only 
 allow ctors if the members are fundamental, etc. etc.




 

John Reimer <brk_6502 yahoo.com> writes:

Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
 struct size
 {
   int x, y;
   static size opCall( int x, int y ) { size p; p.x = x; p.y = y; return p; }
 }
 
 size zs = size(2,3);
 
 A bit ugly but works.
 
 I like the idea of strongly distinguishing structs from classes, though.
 
 Andrew.
 
 

This is the known stop-gap solution. I don't think this solution would 
get good marks for readability.

Furthermore, distinguishing structs from classes shouldn't be an issue. 
  They are similar already in so many other ways that adding ctors to 
structs shouldn't make a difference: both structs and classes can 
contain function/methods; both can make use of operator overloading, etc.

Understanding the differences between structs and classes should amount 
to just understanding D.

-JJR

"Andrew Fedoniouk" <news terrainformatica.com> writes:

   static size opCall( int x, int y ) { size p; p.x = x; p.y = y; return 
 p; }


 This is the known stop-gap solution. I don't think this solution would get 
 good marks for readability.

I agree. Again: "A bit ugly but works".

Andrew.