Can we drop static struct initializers?

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:48:28 -0500, Don <nospam at nospam.com> wrote:

> Now that we have struct literals, the old C-style struct initializers  
> don't seem to be necessary.
> The variations with named initializers are not really implemented -- the  
> example in the spec doesn't work, and most uses of them cause compiler  
> segfaults or wrong code generation. EG...
>
> struct Move{
>     int D;
> }
> enum Move genMove = { D:4 };
> immutable Move b = genMove;
>
> It's not difficult to fix these compiler problems, but I'm just not sure  
> if it's worth implementing. Maybe they should just be dropped? (The {  
> field: value } style anyway).

Brought up in another thread, a good use of static initializers for  
structs: arrays of POD literals.

For example:

struct RGB
{
   ubyte red, green, blue;
}

RGB[256] PALETTE = [
{0x00, 0x00, 0x00},
{0x01, 0x01, 0x01},
...
];

can you do something like this without static initializers?  My  
recollection is that this is the only way to have a struct array literal.

-Steve