Anonymous structs

[Era Scarecrow]

On Tuesday, 12 February 2013 at 14:10:41 UTC, Jacob Carlborg 
wrote:
> On 2013-02-12 13:08, Era Scarecrow wrote:
>> No, deducing types like this won't work for static typing, be 
>> they anonymous or not. The only way they'd work is if they 
>> only existed for the one instance, being point or point_color, 
>> but auto wouldn't allow you to auto determine it; But still 
>> that doesn't seem like a good syntax to have and I'd rather 
>> take the extra line to define the type to ensure it's uniqe, 
>> Or tuples if it's only data..
>
> You obviously don't understand how I want it to work.

  Seems I did misread what you had, however having it creating 
dozens of misc/anonymous types doesn't seem like a wise idea. The 
entire block as it was defined is more like a scope/code block 
rather than a struct declaration; Then is it a delegate instead? 
(without return type or input type possibly)

   int x = 100;
   int y = {
       int z;
       int isPrime(int n);

       z = x * 100;
//      z = isPrime(100); //alternate to avoid 'nested'
   };

   //was code block run? (delegate or anonymous function)
   assert(y.z == 10000);
   writeln(y.z);          //allowed?
   writeln(y.isprime(x)); //allowed?
   y();                   //allowed?

   //if y is code block can be run...
   //last line is return line? Or not?
   assert(y() == x*100);
//  assert(y() == 0);      //isprime version

  Now if it relies on x or not, is it now nested or not? Keep in 
mind the following is completely legal in C/C++/D. I've used this 
before to help separate and fold code.

  {
    //inner scope
    {
      int tmp = 256;
      //some code involving tmp
    }
  }