Struct Initialization syntax

[John Colvin]

On Monday, 23 July 2018 at 16:57:20 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 04:26:42PM +0000, Seb via Digitalmars-d 
> wrote:
>> tl;dr: the currently proposed syntax options are:
>> ---
>> struct S
>> {
>>     int a = 2, b = 4, c = 6;
>> }
>> void foo()
>> {
>>     bar(S({c: 10})); // Option 1
>>     bar(S(c: 10));   // Option 2
>>     bar(S{c: 10});   // Option 3
>> }
>> ---
>> 
>> So the struct-initialization DIP has been stalled for too long 
>> and I think it's time we finally get this story done.
>
> +1.
>
>
>> I personally prefer option 2, but this might be in conflict to 
>> named arguments which we hopefully see in the near future too.
>
> Yeah.
>
>
>> Hence, I'm leaning forward to proposing Option 1 as the 
>> recommended Option for the DIP (that's also what the PoC DMD 
>> PR implements). What's your take on this?
> [...]
>
> I don't like option 1 because it resembles anonymous function 
> syntax and AA initialization syntax, but is actually neither.

Seeing as we already have

S s = { c : 10 };

I'd say it would be fairer to say it resembles anonymous function 
syntax and AA initialisation syntax, but mostly it resembles the 
existing struct initialisation syntax.