Yet another MRV proposal!

[Bill Baxter]

downs wrote:
> Let's give this another try.
> The following proposal has the advantage that it's funded mostly on existing syntax.
> 
> An anonymous struct, in the position where you'd normally expect a function/method return type, is usable as the return type instead.
> 
> Example:
> 
> struct { int a; float b; } test() { return(1, 2f); }
> 
> writefln(test().a, test().b);
> 
> The compiler would translate this into "current D" as follows:
> 
> struct _D_anonymous_struct_1 { int a; float b; }
> _D_anonymous_struct_1 test() { return _D_anonymous_struct_1(1, 2f); }
> 
> Because of the not-exactly-clear type name, it is necessary to store the returned value in an auto/const/static variable.
> 
> This looks like it could be ambiguous, but it really isn't - the two conditions required here - an unnamed struct in the position where a return type would be expected - are quite unambiguous :)
> 
> Whaddya think?
> 
>  --downs

It does seem reasonable that you should be able to return an anonymous 
struct (or class).

I guess for a no-element struct you could use "return (); "?
Or for an anon struct with default values.

struct{int a=1; int b=2;} foo() { return(); }

The return becomes like an invocation of static opCall, except you leave 
the name of the struct off, because it's anonymous.

For classes syntax could be like

class{int a=1; int b=2;} foo() { return new (); }

Do you have a need for this?

--bb