Can we drop static struct initializers?
grauzone
none at example.net
Fri Nov 20 12:29:55 PST 2009
Travis Boucher wrote:
> 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?).
gdc and ldc connect the dmd frontend with free backends.
Of course, it gets harder to send Walter a patch in this case, and I
would expect that such a patch is simply ignored.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list