Can we drop static struct initializers?

[retard]

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:59:21 +0000, dsimcha wrote:

> == Quote from Don (nospam at nospam.com)'s article
>> 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).
> 
> I'd be inclined to say go for it, because it's yet another crufty
> feature inherited from C that I don't use, was barely aware even
> existed, and has been superseded by a better feature that's unique to D.
>  What can be done with struct initializers that can't be done just as
> easily with struct literals?  As far as I can tell (correct me if I'm
> wrong), nothing.
> 
> IMHO we concern ourselves with C source compatibility and ease of
> porting C code too much sometimes.  If people want a language that's
> source compatible with C, they want C++ and they know where to find it. 
> If they want a language that sacrifices backwards compatibility to get
> rid of tons of cruft, then that's what D is and we shouldn't be ashamed
> of it.  If we kinda sorta care about C source compatibility, we won't
> attract either audience.

Well said.