• Meta (6/6) Jun 13 2014 I thought this was possible, but DMD 2.065 doesn't allow it,
• =?UTF-8?B?QWxpIMOHZWhyZWxp?= (3/8) Jun 13 2014 Those both compile with 2.066
• Meta (3/16) Jun 13 2014 Right, thanks. It's difficult to keep track of what's already
• Philippe Sigaud via Digitalmars-d-learn (4/4) Jun 14 2014 Would
• "Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?= <schuetzm gmx.net> (8/12) Jun 14 2014 No:
• Philippe Sigaud via Digitalmars-d-learn (2/6) Jun 14 2014 I agree. I'm trying to get a feel on the limits of this new

"Meta" <jared771 gmail.com> writes:

I thought this was possible, but DMD 2.065 doesn't allow it, 
saying "no constructor for int":

int* p = new int(3);

Is something like this planned for the future? I know we can 
already do:

int n = int(3);

=?UTF-8?B?QWxpIMOHZWhyZWxp?= <acehreli yahoo.com> writes:

On 06/13/2014 10:29 PM, Meta wrote:
 I thought this was possible, but DMD 2.065 doesn't allow it, saying "no
 constructor for int":

 int* p = new int(3);

 Is something like this planned for the future? I know we can already do:

 int n = int(3);

Those both compile with 2.066

Ali

"Meta" <jared771 gmail.com> writes:

On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 06:39:56 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
 On 06/13/2014 10:29 PM, Meta wrote:
 I thought this was possible, but DMD 2.065 doesn't allow it, 
 saying "no
 constructor for int":

 int* p = new int(3);

 Is something like this planned for the future? I know we can 
 already do:

 int n = int(3);

 Those both compile with 2.066

 Ali

Right, thanks. It's difficult to keep track of what's already 
released and what's in Git HEAD.

Philippe Sigaud via Digitalmars-d-learn writes:

Would

auto i = (int*)(3);

make sense?

Does it work?

"Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?= <schuetzm gmx.net> writes:

On Saturday, 14 June 2014 at 08:09:12 UTC, Philippe Sigaud via 
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
 Would

 auto i = (int*)(3);

 make sense?

 Does it work?

No:
Error: C style cast illegal, use cast(int*)3

And I don't think it should, because the heap allocation that 
you're probably expecting should be explicit IMO. For me it's 
also unintuitive, because I would read it as constructing a 
pointer that points to the address 3.

Philippe Sigaud via Digitalmars-d-learn writes:

 And I don't think it should, because the heap allocation that you're
 probably expecting should be explicit IMO. For me it's also unintuitive,
 because I would read it as constructing a pointer that points to the address
 3.

I agree. I'm trying to get a feel on the limits of this new
'type(value)' syntax.