Is there a way to initialize a non-assigned structure declaration (or is it a definition)?

[Vijay Nayar]

This is merely a syntactic difference in how structs are handled. 
  In D, structs are more akin to low level types like int and have 
most of the same symantics.

So
   SnonParameterized cnp(5, 3.303);
makes about as much sense as
   int cnp(3);

You have two syntax choices to pick from in the D version of the 
code you posted:
   struct SnonParameterized
   {
     int t;
     float u;
   };

   void main() {
     auto snon1 = SnonParameterized(3, 4.5);  // Option 1
     SnonParameterized snon2 = {3, 4.5};      // Option 2
   }

  - Vijay


On Saturday, 10 November 2012 at 17:41:00 UTC, Too Embarrassed To 
Say wrote:
> I appreciate all the helpful replies, but I've simplified 
> things to what I belive is the core issue. In C++ (at the risk 
> of becoming a heretic) the language allows me to do the 
> following:
>
> struct SnonParameterized
> {
> public:
>    int t;
>    float u;
>    SnonParameterized(int tparam, float uparam);
> };
>
> SnonParameterized::SnonParameterized(int tparam, float uparam)
> {
>    t = tparam;
>    u = uparam;
> }
>
> SnonParameterized snp(5, 3.303);  // this compiles with Visual 
> C++ 2010
>
>
> ===============================================================================
>
> Now with D, I try (what I think is identical semantics) the 
> following:
>
>
> struct SnonParameterized
> {
>    int t;
>    float u;
>    this(int t, float u)
>    {
>       this.t = t
>       this.u = u;
>    }
> }
>
> SnonParameterized cnp(5, 3.303);  // fails compile with Error: 
> found 'cnp' when expecting ';' following statement
>
> auto hi = SnonParameterized(5, 3.303);  // compiles of course.
>
>
> I'm just trying to understand why D disallows the 
> non-assignment syntax.  Probably for a very good (and obvious) 
> reason.