On Tuesday, 10 February 2026 at 12:50:16 UTC, monkyyy wrote:
On Tuesday, 10 February 2026 at 12:04:05 UTC, Brother Bill
wrote:
When adding an explicit constructor such as ```this(string
fileName)```, this is "supposed" to remove the "default"
constructor. Then the developer needs to add back the default
constructor.
[...]
```d
import std;
struct foo{
int i,j;
this(int a, int b){
j=a;
i=b;
}
}
unittest{
auto bar=foo(1,2);
bar=foo(3);
}
```
Error: constructor `onlineapp.foo.this(int a, int b)` is not
callable using argument types `(int)`
working as expected
Perfectly true as foo(3) has no explicit constructor.
If you remove this(int a, int b), it will also fail to compile.
My question is about the *parameterless* constructor:
``` auto a4 = Archive();```
I am unable to define a parameterless constructor for it.
Is the only alternative to prevent a parameterless construction
to use ```@disable this();``` ?
