On Wednesday, 1 February 2017 at 23:32:12 UTC, bitwise wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 February 2017 at 23:24:27 UTC, kinke wrote:
It's not that bad. D just doesn't support a default ctor for
structs at all and simply initializes each instance with
T.init. Your `s2` initialization is most likely seen as
On Wednesday, 1 February 2017 at 23:24:27 UTC, kinke wrote:
It's not that bad. D just doesn't support a default ctor for
structs at all and simply initializes each instance with
T.init. Your `s2` initialization is most likely seen as
explicit default initialization (again with T.init).
Destruc
On Wednesday, 1 February 2017 at 23:02:11 UTC, bitwise wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 February 2017 at 01:52:40 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 February 2017 at 00:43:39 UTC, bitwise wrote:
Container!int c; // = Container!int() -> can't do this.
Can you live with
Container!int c = Containe
On Wednesday, 1 February 2017 at 01:52:40 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe
wrote:
On Wednesday, 1 February 2017 at 00:43:39 UTC, bitwise wrote:
Container!int c; // = Container!int() -> can't do this.
Can you live with
Container!int c = Container!int.create();
because D supports that and can force the issu
On Wednesday, 1 February 2017 at 00:43:39 UTC, bitwise wrote:
Container!int c; // = Container!int() -> can't do this.
Can you live with
Container!int c = Container!int.create();
because D supports that and can force the issue with `@disable
this();` which causes compilation to fail any place
C#'s "Dispose" pattern comes to mind here.
You don't leak memory, you just leak file handles and graphics
resources instead when you forget to explicitly call Dispose().
On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 at 23:52:31 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
On 01/31/2017 03:15 PM, bitwise wrote:
[...]
Thanks for the response, but this doesn't really solve the
problem.
> If the object is defined at module scope as shared static
> immutable
It is indeed possible to initialize immuta
On 01/31/2017 03:15 PM, bitwise wrote:
> If the object is defined at module scope as shared static immutable
Yes, the situation is different from C++ but it's always possible to
call a function (which constructor is one) to make the object.
It is indeed possible to initialize immutable object
Unless I'm missing something, it seems that neither of these are
actually possible.
Consider an object which needs internal state to function.
The obvious answer is to create it in the constructor:
struct Foo(T)
{
T* payload;
this() { payload = cast(T*)malloc(T.sizeof);
