http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7191

           Summary: ctor/opAssign doesn't play nice with field
                    initialization
           Product: D
           Version: D2
          Platform: Other
        OS/Version: Windows
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: DMD
        AssignedTo: nobody@puremagic.com
        ReportedBy: andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com


--- Comment #0 from Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> 2011-12-31 09:50:39 PST ---
struct PointF {
    float x, y;
}

struct Point {
    int x, y;
    this(PointF) { }
    void opAssign(PointF) { }
}

struct Line {
    Point pt1;
    Point pt2;
}

void main() {
    Line line;
    line.pt1 = PointF(0, 0);  // ok
    line.pt2 = PointF(0, 0);  // ok

    auto line2 = Line(PointF(0, 0), PointF(0, 0));  // ng
}

I see no reason why field initialization shouldn't work if each field defines a ctor or opAssign that can take such a type.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7191



--- Comment #1 from Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> 2013-09-17 14:40:33 PDT ---
Simpler example:

-----
struct A
{
    this(B) { }
}

struct B
{
}

struct C
{
    A a;
}

void main()
{
    // field initialization, c.a = B(), 'a' defines ctor for 'B'
    auto c = C(B());  // error
}
-----

I'm not sure whether or not we want to support this. Should field initialization allow implicit calls to a ctor of that field?

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7191


bearophile_hugs@eml.cc changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |bearophile_hugs@eml.cc


--- Comment #2 from bearophile_hugs@eml.cc 2013-09-17 15:44:32 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #1)

> I'm not sure whether or not we want to support this. Should field initialization allow implicit calls to a ctor of that field?

I am not sure, but I think the current behavour is acceptable. If you want a different behavour in Line you can add a ctor to it.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7191


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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |enhancement


--- Comment #3 from Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich@gmail.com> 2013-09-17 15:47:28 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> 
> > I'm not sure whether or not we want to support this. Should field initialization allow implicit calls to a ctor of that field?
> 
> I am not sure, but I think the current behavour is acceptable. If you want a different behavour in Line you can add a ctor to it.

The OP code was an attempt at providing convenience functionality, but when I think about this now almost 2 years later, this just complicates the API. This is not a feature I desperately need.

I'm marking this an enhancement though.

-- 
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------