Can we drop static struct initializers?
Walter Bright
newshound1 at digitalmars.com
Fri Nov 20 10:29:14 PST 2009
Bill Baxter wrote:
> 1) Struct literals don't work if you have an opCall for your struct.
> (Maybe that's not such a big deal now that structs have
> constructors? I haven't had a chance to look into struct constructors
> yet...)
Worst case, you can still construct them dynamically.
> 2) The field:value style struct initializer is probably the closest D
> will ever get to named arguments. I think perhaps it should require
> the struct name, and be treated as a struct literal rather than static
> initializer:
>
> auto anS = S{D:4}; <=> auto anS = S(4)
I think we'd need a compelling use case for why this is needed.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list