Anonymous structs

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2013-02-13 09:45, Era Scarecrow wrote:

>   Then let's step back. You can make a scope block without having 'if'
> or any other statment that separates it.
>
>    unittest {
>      int x;
>
>      {
>        x++;//code block is valid
>      }
>
>   Now if you attach that to a variable it's effectively a delegate,
> function, or predicate; depending on syntax of how it's called.
>
>      auto y = delegate void(){ x++; };
>      auto y = (){ x++; }; //shortened to
>      auto y = { x++; };   //if no calling variables gets shortened to..??
>
>   Now if there's only type declarations and no instructions, it can be
> an anonymous struct (probably), but what if it has code? Is it a code
> block? The code gets defaulted to a function inside it? Illegal to do
> period? (at which point it breaks regular compatibility most likely).

My suggestion is for anonymous structs, nothing else. It can only 
contain declarations of fields. I would thought that was pretty clear, 
especially since the subject says "Anonymous structs" and not something 
like "Anonymous delegates".

I also showed how the syntax is lowered into a regular named struct, 
which would make things even more clear. But apparently not.

Is my English so bad or is it just the idea that is so bad?

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg