On Wednesday, 29 November 2023 at 16:48:09 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
You can use this syntax without an explicit constructor:
struct S3 { int a; int b; }
S3 fun() { return S3(5, 2); }
The language spec calls this a struct literal
Ok, so we have
```d
struct S { int a; int b; }
S s = S(5, 3); // works
s = S(6, 2); // works
S fun() { return S(5, 2); } // works
int fun2(S s2);
fun2(S(4,4)); // works
```
but
```d
struct S { int a; int b; }
S s = { 5, 3 }; // works
s = { 6, 2 }; // doesn't work
S fun() { return { 5, 2 }; } // doesn't work
int fun2(S s2);
fun2(S(4,4)); // doesn't work
```
So, why supporting the (somewhat strange looking) version with
curly backets at all?
It only works in one special place, so is simply overhead to
remember.
Again a superfluous way to do the same - but only under specific
circumstances.
I think a syntax should work either always or never.
