Can we drop static struct initializers?

[Bill Baxter]

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Walter Bright
<newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> 1) Struct literals don't work if you have an opCall for your struct.
>>    (Maybe that's not such a big deal now that structs have
>> constructors?  I haven't had a chance to look into struct constructors
>> yet...)
>
> Worst case, you can still construct them dynamically.
>
>> 2) The field:value style struct initializer is probably the closest D
>> will ever get to named arguments.  I think perhaps it should require
>> the struct name, and be treated as a struct literal rather than static
>> initializer:
>>
>>      auto anS = S{D:4};   <=>   auto anS = S(4)
>
> I think we'd need a compelling use case for why this is needed.

This is the main use case I have in mind:

void runAlgo(Options opt);

struct Options {
    bool useFrobbing = false;
    int numIters = 200;
    float tolerance = 1e-4;
    int verbosity = 0;
    // ...
 }

runAlgo( Options{verbosity:100} );

instead of

Options opt;
opt.verbosity = 100;
runAlgo(opt);

--bb