http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=11206
--- Comment #6 from monarchdo...@gmail.com 2013-10-09 14:11:33 PDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > Claim is follows: this is a D valid code. OK. > Backing: > 1) AGG(1) is a struct literal (struct spec page). Note, that struct literal > really means struct literal, not "default struct constructor" or "implicit > function call" or "call expression" or any other 'creative' understaning of > language rules. > 2) Struct literal contains member initializers which should match in order and > type to struct member initializer (struct spec page + TDPL). > 3) Integer literal is valid initializer for static array of ints (TDPL). How do you define "is a valid initializer"? The struct page (http://dlang.org/struct.html ?) doesn't actually define it (nor does it define much on what is or isn't a valid construction type. In my original case, S can be initialized by int, so isn't int a valid initializer for S? If not, why not? Just because? This is what is throwing me off. Seems the root argument is that static arrays are the *only* type that can be initialized form a type that is not implicitly "it", and that this special rule applies *only* during aggregate construction. I see neither of the two points explained in struct.html, nor array.html ? -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------