Can now use alias for collapsing multiple fields in nested structs

[ryuukk_]

On Monday, 6 January 2025 at 12:12:30 UTC, Nick Treleaven wrote:
> On Sunday, 5 January 2025 at 07:48:38 UTC, ryuukk_ wrote:
>>> Why do you need an anonymous struct type there? Naming it and 
>>> using the struct name for `inner` isn't difficult, and it 
>>> doesn't seem needed that often.
>>
>> It's same story with tagged union, tuples, .enum, if you don't 
>> see them as improvements, there is nothing to argue about, try 
>> to use a language that supports them all, and you'll realize 
>> that it's like stepping up and upgrading your toolbox
>
> You were asking for anonymous structs, yet tuple syntax is 
> already planned ([and std Tuple is usable 
> today](https://forum.dlang.org/post/lgzmgfforaaxogcyoxdl@forum.dlang.org)). It's not good design to have both in the language. If a tuple is too concise for a use-case (e.g. you want to ddoc the fields), then use a named struct.
>
> Too much language complexity has costs in tooling, learning, 
> error messages, etc.

there is none of that in the language Today, if listening to you, 
then let's stop all the DIPs and discussions about improving the 
language

i think there is a bias coming from you here, you don't see any 
of that as an improvement for Yourself, therefore you turn them 
down automatically without any _valid_ arguments

and by valid i meant something that is not "it adds code to DMD"

besides, i'm not asking for any _new_ feature here, just an 
improvement to anonymous struct, wich is already an existing 
concept in D

if i were to ask for @safe, sure, @super_safe, sure sure, 
placement new? obviously, new feature, but i am not

so let's discuss, on the merit of trying to improve things and 
make them nicer to use, using critical thinking, and by avoiding 
personal bias

Spring is next, let's dust the elephant, editions are coming.. 
better prepare, or, it's gonna "add too much code to DMD"?