digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 3438] New: constructor with defaulted parameters ignored
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (25/25) Oct 23 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3438
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (11/11) Nov 09 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3438
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (19/19) Nov 10 2009 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3438
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (20/20) Jan 22 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3438
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (22/22) Dec 21 2012 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3438
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (6/6) Sep 17 2013 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3438
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3438 Summary: constructor with defaulted parameters ignored Product: D Version: unspecified Platform: Other OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: DMD AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com ReportedBy: andrei metalanguage.com 07:44:31 PDT --- struct foo { this(int dummy = 0) { writeln("Default constructor");} } void main() { foo x = foo(); } does not print anything. The code should either not compile or print something. I think at some point we'll need to support default constructors that execute code. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Oct 23 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3438 Eldar Insafutdinov <e.insafutdinov gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |e.insafutdinov gmail.com 13:18:26 PST --- I would also like to have default struct constructors implemented. So I give a vote to this one. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Nov 09 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3438 22:39:12 PST --- To add a point, by default constructor should be invoked if present. There may be some reasons to keep a way to create an uninitialized struct(yeah, D is a systems language), but it should be done explicitly. Now we have an opposite situation, where by default struct is not initialized, and if you want to, you can define static opCall like in D1(what an ugly hack!) and call it manually. I have the real word example for that as well. I am porting Qt container classes to D. They are value types with Copy on Write semantics and atomic reference counting. They need some initialization (reference increment) when constructed. So basically if I write something like this: QList!int a; It would not be a valid code. So I have to do auto a = QList!int(); That is annoying, unsafe(I would have write something in the docs: always initialize with static opCall!) and not consistent with other value types. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Nov 10 2009
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3438 Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jmdavisProg gmx.com PST --- At this point, I don't think that the situation with default constructors and structs is going to change. It's a result of requiring init properties for all types, and is thus a "forced fault" in the language. From discussions on it in the newsgroup, it seems likely that if we were to create a restricted default constructor (one which didn't do the things that we can't let it do, because it woludn't work with init), it would too restrictive to really be of much use anyway. So, I think that all of that strays from the point of this bug. Having a default argument for all of the parameters of a struct's constructor should result in a compilation error. It's illegal. The language doesn't support it. But rather than giving an error, the compiler currently just ignores it. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Jan 22 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3438 Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords|wrong-code |accepts-invalid, pull CC| |andrej.mitrovich gmail.com Platform|Other |All Version|2.000 |D2 AssignedTo|nobody puremagic.com |andrej.mitrovich gmail.com Summary|constructor with defaulted |struct ctor with defaulted |parameters ignored |parameters should be | |rejected OS/Version|Linux |All 15:52:48 PST --- Changed what was basically an enhancement request into an accepts-invalid bug. If the state of things change we can work on it later (if Walter green-lights default ctors for structs), but for now all forms of default ctors in structs must be rejected by the compiler. https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/1397 -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 21 2012
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3438 12:15:54 PDT --- *** Issue 10952 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. *** -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Sep 17 2013