Struct Initialization syntax

[Daniel N]

On Tuesday, 24 July 2018 at 03:59:53 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
> On 24/07/2018 6:43 AM, kinke wrote:
>> On Monday, 23 July 2018 at 17:32:23 UTC, aliak wrote:
>>> Can we just consider that named struct init syntax *is* a 
>>> generated named constructor?
>>>
>>> If named arguments choose a different syntax then you have no 
>>> conflict. If they go with the same (i.e. option 2) then you 
>>> have seamless consistency.
>> 
>> +1. And hoping for the latter, seamless consistency.
>
> Based upon my DIP that is in the queue for named arguments, it 
> would be trivial for this DIP to make it so a named parameter 
> constructor can override the default behavior and I think that 
> this is the best way forward.

Yes, it makes sense to review the "named arguments" DIP before 
this one, any link?