🚀 go-pugleaf

>> The last one, 2b, I do not agree with: I am making a difference in
>> initialization by placing the initialisation code outside of the
>> constructor. So then it is defendable to also treat it differently.
>
>But the only _reasonable_ way to treat it would be to flag it as an
>error: Either you have some automagic which moves it into the
>constructor in a known manner (as today), _or_ you define that all
>initialization need ne explicified by the programmer where they want
>it - in the constructor or an invoked method.

Well, I can see we are not going to see eye-to-eye on this one. I
suggest we should agree to disagree (until a solid reason that is
totally convincing comes up, naturally for my point of view ;-).

Thanks for the discussion!

>int[] _tmp = new int[3];
>_tmp[0] = 1;
>_tmp[1] = 2;
>_tmp[2] = 3;
>foo = _tmp;
>)

Ahhh, the beauty of compiler optimized code...