https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10413

Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com

--- Comment #4 from Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> ---
According to Walter it's ok if a UDT defines its own .init, which would make value.init valid: https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7066

I don't agree with him though, especially since the whole argument against allowing user-defined default ctors is the compile-time known .init property.

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10413

Andrei Alexandrescu <andrei@erdani.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Version|D1 & D2                     |D2

--

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10413

Nicholas Wilson <iamthewilsonator@hotmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |iamthewilsonator@hotmail.co
                   |                            |m
         Resolution|---                         |INVALID

--- Comment #5 from Nicholas Wilson <iamthewilsonator@hotmail.com> ---
int foo() { return 1; }

static assert(foo.init == 0);

is a case of optional parentheses, as

char foo() { return 1; }

static assert(foo.init == 255);

passes, but

int foo(int) { return 1; }

static assert(foo.init == 0);

fails with

onlineapp.d(3): Error: function onlineapp.foo(int) is not callable using
argument types ()
onlineapp.d(3):        missing argument for parameter #1: int
onlineapp.d(3):        while evaluating: static assert((__error).init == 0)

closing as invalid

--