Can we drop static struct initializers?

Travis Boucher boucher.travis at gmail.com
Fri Nov 20 06:56:54 PST 2009


Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Walter Bright, el 19 de noviembre a las 23:53 me escribiste:
>>> 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).
>> Funny, I've been thinking the same thing. Those initializers are
>> pretty much obsolete, the only thing left is the field name thing.
>> To keep the field name thing with the newer struct literals would
>> require named function parameters as well, something doable but I'm
>> not ready to do all the work to implement that yet.
> 
> Is nice to read that you like the idea of having named function
> parameters, even when you don't have the time or don't want to implement
> them :)
> 

Whats even nicer is that dmd front end and back end are open source 
allowing anyone to implement them if they really want to.

Of course it will be even nicerer once the back end is at a state where 
it can be under a less restrictive license (single user, no 
redistribution? seriously?).



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list