anonymus struct or class instances as arguments

[Leopold Walkling]

Leopold Walkling schrieb:
> Couldn't there be a syntax for creating a struct or class instance, that 
> only exists for one function?
> In the moment there are scope classes, but they can't be used without an 
> identifier as an argument. Normal class instances can be given as an 
> argument, but then the destructor can't be called manually, nor is it 
> called automatically before the end of the programm.
> Why can't the 'scope' keyword be used like this:
> 
> function(scope new A() // Here the constructor is called);
> //Here the destructor is called
> 
> Also there isn't a way to create a struct, only by giving its values. 
> This can be done with something like this, although it's very ugly:
> 
> struct A {
>     int i;
> }
> void funk(A);
> 
> int main() {
>     funk(*(cast(A*)[cast(int)9].ptr);
>     return 0;
> }
> 
> Also this would lead to a slight overhead, because of the cast. Is there 
> any reason why those possibilites don't exist?
> And what should I use instead of those, if they are refused?
> 
> My main problem is, that I don't want to create a variable with a name 
> everytime I have to use one Object, that I don't need later, and then 
> call the destructor.

I just want to know how the creator imagined the language to be like in 
this point. Should a programmer create a struct and assign each member a 
value manually? Or are they supposed to overload the opCall() ?
I read some posts about readability and 'simple operations should be 
simple', but an opCall seems simple though it isn't always. And 
assignments to each member only make the code larger.