Anonymous structs

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2013-02-13 14:02, Era Scarecrow wrote:

>   More like how to make it syntactically proper/unambiguous & compatible
> so the compiler could identify and use it properly; Sudden new use(s) of
> code blocks without somehow clarifying it's intended use (before hand)
> could be a problem, or worse yet, prevent something better later if it's
> introduced & used (and you get the same C++ issues where you can't
> fix/change something without breaking anything relying on a defined
> feature). Remember, just cause it seems simple (to us) doesn't mean it's
> simple.
>
>   Maybe I'm thinking too far ahead... How much extra complexity would be
> be to add the feature? If we're using say Lex & Yacc for example a
> simple feature would be only a couple lines; If you need to make whole
> new branch(es) then it may not be a good idea. If it requires complex
> rules, then it may not be reliable as we won't remember them all while
> we're programming.

I think this all sounds like a big misunderstanding. I though you wanted 
to turn my proposal to some kind of delegate. Sometimes it's better to 
very clear and spell out exactly what one mean, something like:

"This syntax will/could conflict with delegates".

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg