"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cevvae$b09$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Walter wrote:
>
> > "Ivan Senji" <ivan.senji@public.srce.hr> wrote in message news:cet2hu$1fbm$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >
> >> Why don't scalar constructors take parametars?
> >> int* ip = new int;
> >> *ip == 0;
>
> Would I be right to figure that this is just syntactic sugar for
>
> int* ip = new int[1];
>
> albeit with some generic programming advantage I'm not sure I see?

Yes.

> >> int* ip = new int(5);
> >> *ip still == 0;
> >>
> >> int* ip = new int(5,5,"HA");
> >> *ip still == 0;
> >>
> >> ?
> >
> > I'm not sure what the case is for it. The reason for adding the current method is for Matthew's DTL.
>
> Then what _does_ new int(5) mean at the moment?  Or is it just a bug
> that the compiler accepts it?

At the moment, the compiler calls it an error <g>.

Walter wrote:

> Focussed on eliminating compiler hangs, gpf's and internal errors.

"Fixed Internal error: ..\ztc\cgcod.c 1464"

There's more than one cause of this error.  The one I posted still fails:

http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.bugs/500

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.