Nicer syntax for constructors

[NoMoreBugs]

On Monday, 19 November 2018 at 21:36:32 UTC, Erik van Velzen 
wrote:
>
>
> TypeScript:
>
> class MyClass {
>     constructor(
>         readonly myValue: number,
>         myArgument: number,
>     ) {}
> }
>
> also Kotlin:
>
> class MyClass(
>     val myValue: Int,
>     myArgument: String
> ) {}
>

Well, I do not 'know' either of Typescript or Kotlin - so my 
statement stands correct ;-)

Of course, my argument is more about consistency, and less about 
how a particular language implements a constructor.

Consistency makes code easier to write, easier to understand, and 
easier to maintain.

Sadly, D, like many languages, lets you do the same things in any 
number of ways - which just places more burden on programmers. 
Go-lang has kinda addressed this issue..

It's also about modularity/encapsulation I guess. The function 
definition is really a definition of its parts, what those parts 
do, and how they work together to form the desired 
'functionality'.

Lets keep 'the parts' - please.

-----
return-type function-name(parameter declarations, if any)
{
   declarations
   statements
}
----