C++ vs D aggregates

[Don]

On 03.12.2011 20:14, Dejan Lekic wrote:
> I recently stumbled on this thread: http://stackoverflow.com/
> questions/5666321/what-is-assignment-via-curly-braces-called-and-can-it-
> be-controlled
>
> The important part is this:
>
> -------- 8<  --------- begin ---------
> The Standard says in section §8.5.1/1,
>
> An aggregate is an array or a class (clause 9) with no user-declared
> constructors (12.1), no private or protected non-static data members
> (clause 11), no base classes (clause 10), and no virtual functions (10.3).
>
> And then it says in §8.5.1/2 that,
>
> When an aggregate is initialized the initializer can contain an
> initializer-clause consisting of a brace-enclosed, comma-separated list
> of initializer-clauses for the members of the aggregate, written in
> increasing subscript or member order. If the aggregate contains
> subaggregates, this rule applies recursively to the members of the
> subaggregate.
> -------->8 --------- end ---------
>
> Do D2 aggregates behave the same, or are there notable differences?

Yes, struct static initializers are the same in D as in C++.
Differences are:
* D also has struct literals, which can be used in contexts other than 
initialization;
* There are no static initializers for classes. (D's classes are never 
'aggregates' in the C++ sense);
* Static initializers for unions are currently very buggy in DMD.