Can we drop static struct initializers?

[dsimcha]

== Quote from Don (nospam at nospam.com)'s article
> Now that we have struct literals, the old C-style struct initializers
> don't seem to be necessary.
> The variations with named initializers are not really implemented -- the
> example in the spec doesn't work, and most uses of them cause compiler
> segfaults or wrong code generation. EG...
> struct Move{
>     int D;
> }
> enum Move genMove = { D:4 };
> immutable Move b = genMove;
> It's not difficult to fix these compiler problems, but I'm just not sure
> if it's worth implementing. Maybe they should just be dropped? (The {
> field: value } style anyway).

I'd be inclined to say go for it, because it's yet another crufty feature
inherited from C that I don't use, was barely aware even existed, and has been
superseded by a better feature that's unique to D.  What can be done with struct
initializers that can't be done just as easily with struct literals?  As far as I
can tell (correct me if I'm wrong), nothing.

IMHO we concern ourselves with C source compatibility and ease of porting C code
too much sometimes.  If people want a language that's source compatible with C,
they want C++ and they know where to find it.  If they want a language that
sacrifices backwards compatibility to get rid of tons of cruft, then that's what D
is and we shouldn't be ashamed of it.  If we kinda sorta care about C source
compatibility, we won't attract either audience.