Struct Initialization syntax

[rikki cattermole]

On 24/07/2018 7:11 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2018-07-23 18:26, Seb wrote:
>> tl;dr: the currently proposed syntax options are:
>>
>>
>> ---
>> struct S
>> {
>>      int a = 2, b = 4, c = 6;
>> }
>> void foo()
>> {
>>      bar(S({c: 10})); // Option 1
>>      bar(S(c: 10));   // Option 2
>>      bar(S{c: 10});   // Option 3
>> }
>> ---
>>
>> So the struct-initialization DIP has been stalled for too long and I 
>> think it's time we finally get this story done.
>> I personally prefer option 2, but this might be in conflict to named 
>> arguments which we hopefully see in the near future too. Hence, I'm 
>> leaning forward to proposing Option 1 as the recommended Option for 
>> the DIP (that's also what the PoC DMD PR implements). What's your take 
>> on this?
>>
>> DIP: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/71
>> Rendered view: 
>> https://github.com/wilzbach/DIPs/blob/struct-initialization/DIPs/DIP1xxx-sw.md 
> 
> 
> Talking about future potential features, Option 1 could be in conflict 
> with a tuple with named elements. Option 2 could be in conflict with 
> named parameters, true, but named parameters could also have a different 
> syntax, i.e. foo(a = 3, b = 4), this is what Scala is using.

We ugh can't use that syntax because of ambiguity to AssignExpression.