On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 4:30 PM, 0ffh <frank@youknow.what.todo.internetz> wrote:

bobef wrote:

opCalls are much more flexible than ctor's because their return type may
vary or they may not have return type. I vote against deprecating them. Let
whoever likes ctors use them and whoever likes opCalls use these.

I agree opCalls are more flexible, but unfortunately you can't have both
because of syntactical ambiguity... :-(

regards, 0ffh

Speaking of syntactical ambiguity, the expression

S(1, 2, 3)

can, right now, have one of three meanings:

1. A struct literal for struct S
2. A call to S's static opCall
3. An instantiation of S and a call to its ctor

Even if opCall goes away, we'll still be left with the ambiguity of struct literal vs. ctor. I'd really, really like to hear Walter's view on this but he has responded neither to the thread I posted on digitalmars.D nor the bugzilla ticket (http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2170).