Struct Initialization syntax

[rikki cattermole]

On 24/07/2018 7:23 PM, Daniel N wrote:
> On Tuesday, 24 July 2018 at 03:59:53 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
>> On 24/07/2018 6:43 AM, kinke wrote:
>>> On Monday, 23 July 2018 at 17:32:23 UTC, aliak wrote:
>>>> Can we just consider that named struct init syntax *is* a generated 
>>>> named constructor?
>>>>
>>>> If named arguments choose a different syntax then you have no 
>>>> conflict. If they go with the same (i.e. option 2) then you have 
>>>> seamless consistency.
>>>
>>> +1. And hoping for the latter, seamless consistency.
>>
>> Based upon my DIP that is in the queue for named arguments, it would 
>> be trivial for this DIP to make it so a named parameter constructor 
>> can override the default behavior and I think that this is the best 
>> way forward.
> 
> Yes, it makes sense to review the "named arguments" DIP before this one, 
> any link?

Mine: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/126
Yshui's: https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/123

Mine is a lot heavier-weight, and applies to templates parameters as 
well as functions. Where as Yshui's is very lightweight compared and 
only applies to functions.

Yshui's will occur first I think, but really we should review them 
together to decide what sort of approach is best.