Bug 12277 – static opCall is hidden by @disabled constructors and can never be called

struct S { @disable this(); @disable this(this); this(int i){ } static S opCall(){ S s = S(123); return s; } } This fails to compile with "static opCall is hidden by constructors and can never be called". But the default ctor is disabled.

Note that the error on your code is correct as you define this(int) - see bug 12194. This issue is not the same as that one, as @disable this alone triggers the error: struct S { @disable this(); static S opCall(){ return S.init; } }

(In reply to Remo from comment #0) > But the default ctor is disabled. Fairly sure that's not relevant. As I understand, @disable does not make a symbol invisible to the compiler, it makes it so that invoking it (one way or another) becomes forbidden. So, annotating the constructor with @disable will not make it prefer the static opCall. I suppose that, as an enhancement, the compiler could be made to prefer the static opCall when the constructor is present but disabled, but this is likely to complicate the language/implementation for very little gain, especially considering that the simple workaround of writing a factory function (as the error message suggests) is available. Note that if you give the opCall method arguments (e.g. `static S opCall(int)`), the code is accepted, so the problem occurs only with the questionable ambiguous S() syntax. As this was filed and has been inactive for over 3 years ago, I'll close this, but feel free to reopen if you disagree.