Can we drop static struct initializers?

[dsimcha]

== Quote from Yigal Chripun (yigal100 at gmail.com)'s article
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > Walter Bright wrote:
> >> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >>> Would love to trim the book as well. My finger is on the Del button.
> >>> Just say a word.
> >>
> >> Unless someone comes up with "I really need field names", dump 'em
> >> (but save a backup of your work first!).
> >
> > My RIP emails to you (as with typedef) are my backup. Don't delete them
> > :o).
> >
> > So, C-style arrays are gone, C-style struct initializers are gone,
> > typedef is gone. __traits isn't feeling too well either :o).
> >
> >
> > Andrei
> what about foreach_reverse ?

IMHO this should be dropped as a keyword, but opApplyReverse should be kept.
Calling std.range.retro() with a type where iteration works via opApply, not
ranges, should cause Retro.opApply to forward to opApplyReverse.  This would
preserve consistency between iterating over ranges and opApply types and get rid
of a really ugly keyword.