> __ctor is a 'this' call, it needs a this (BTW, I get different errors than
> you):

Seems like not (see my corrected bug in previous post)

> Not sure how you would do that in one line

ditto

>> Why not use 'this' instead of '__ctor', and make it documented (and
>> reliable, ie work in the above case) ?
>> I don't see how that could create ambiguity, and that would solve the
>> problem raised in this thread.
>
>
> You could do that.  It may have some ambiguous syntax implications.

I really can't think of any, and I think it would just make sense, given that it'd match the way the function is declared.

On Tue, 14 May 2013 00:32:49 -0400, Timothee Cour <thelastmammoth@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I declared fun(T) as fun(T)() with the added parenthesis, and it
>> worked (tested on dmd 2.062 / ubuntu 64bits).
>
> sorry I reduced wrongly.
> Here's the inconsistency:
>
> ----
> struct A {
> 	this(T)(T x) {	}
> }
> auto fun1(){	
> 	auto a=A.__ctor!(int)(1); //OK

This line causes an error message for me:

testctor.d(5): Error: need 'this' for 'this' of type 'pure nothrow ref @safe A(int x)'

> 	return a;
> }
> auto fun2(){	
> //	return A.__ctor!(int)(1); //uncomment gives Error: type A is not an
> expression

Same error for me here:

testctor.d(9): Error: need 'this' for 'this' of type 'pure nothrow ref @safe A(int x)'

I'm using dmd beta candidate, 2.061 does give the same error message you have.

Note that you may expect this as you are using an undocumented "feature" :)

-Steve