DMD 1.035 and 2.019 releases

[Jarrett Billingsley]

On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Denis Koroskin <2korden at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:44:30 +0400, Tomas Lindquist Olsen
> <tomas at famolsen.dk> wrote:
>
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>>
>>> bearophile wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Walter Bright:
>>>>>
>>>>> If there's any constructor defined for S, then S(args) is a
>>>>> constructor call. If there's any opCall defined for S, then S(args)
>>>>> is an opCall call. Otherwise, it's a struct literal.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't tried that in real code, so I can't be sure, but while it
>>>> may work for the compiler, it sounds a bit too much complex for the
>>>> person that later reads the code. Too many alternative possibilities
>>>> may make the code more complex to follow.
>>>>
>>>> To reduce such ambiguity (ambiguity for the person, not for the
>>>> compiler) may be to change the syntax of struct literals...
>>>
>>>  I disagree, I think just the reverse. The S(args) syntax means that it's
>>> entirely up to the struct designer to say how it should work. The user
>>> needn't know or care, and the struct designer can change the design without
>>> affecting user code.
>>>
>>
>> This is one of those things I really dislike about D :(
>> It's really nice that we can override struct initialization, but the fact
>> that it eliminates the possibility to override it (with a nice syntax) makes
>> it much less appealing IMHO.
>>
>> The most important point to me, is that old thing about static struct
>> initializer and struct literals have different syntaxes, and that the static
>> variant is much more flexible.
>>
>> I would have loved to see the static struct initializer syntax become an
>> expression. If the problem is ambiguity, why not just prefix the {} braces
>> with the struct name?
>>
>> struct S
>> {
>>  int a;
>>  float b;
>> }
>>
>> const s = S{1, 2.0};
>> const t = S{b:3.14};
>>
>> void foo()
>> {
>>  auto st = S{4,5.5};
>> }
>>
>
> It may have problems with the q{}:
>
> struct q
> {
>    float t;
> }
>
> auto foo = q{ t = 3.1415f };    // what's the type of foo?
>
> But then, does anybody using it?
>
> Other than that I agree, current solution is not very good.
>

auto foo = q { t: 3.1415f}; // typeof(foo) == q

q{ is treated more or less as an atomic character.  Put a space
between them and bam, you have a struct literal.

And please don't get rid of token strings; those of us who love mixins
wouldn't want to see them go ;)