D Uniform initialization {}

[Patric Dexheimer via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 21 October 2016 at 19:20:25 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
> Dne 21.10.2016 v 20:49 Patric Dexheimer via Digitalmars-d 
> napsal(a):
>
>> Quite sure that this was already discussed, but.. any chance 
>> of this on D?
> No (I hope so)
>>
>> There are a lot of places where it should make the code clear.
> Can you elaborate on this?
>> I always have to create shorter aliases for the most used 
>> structs. (which i think is awkward sometimes)
> Why? (I do not see any relation to Uniform initialization)

egs:
//D
alias vec3 = Tuple!(float, "x", float, "y", float, "z");
vec3[] vectors = [
    vec3(1.0,0.0,1.0),
    vec3(2.0,1.0,1.0),
    vec3(3.0,2.0,1.0)
];
//C++ equivalent
vec3 vectors[] = {
    {1.0,0.0,1.0},
    {2.0,1.0,1.0},
    {3.0,2.0,1.0}
};

//D
auto return_value = get_struct(); //don´t need to write the 
return type
set_struct( StructName(value1, value2) );
//C++
set_struct( {value1, value2} ); //don´t need to write the 
argument type

//D in case of large struct names
alias v = VeryLargeStructName; //not cool
v[] vectors = [
    v(1.0,0.0,1.0),
    v(2.0,1.0,1.0),
    v(3.0,2.0,1.0)
];


I find myself falling with frequency on examples that will 
benefit from the c++ uniform initialization.

"No (I hope so)"

Can you explain why you think is a bad idea?