On 2016-07-31 06:55, deadalnix wrote:
That doesn't help. In fact, it makes things worse as now constructor
calls and function call do not have the same syntax. You've just created
an holly mess in the parser.
If something we should strive to get constructor call more like regular
function call rather than less (for instance by behaving the same way
when it comes to IFTI).
It is also unclear how overload resolution is supposed to work.
If I may suggest one thing it is to not start with the intended result
for the DIP, but start from the intended change int he language, then,
and only then, examine what comes out of it.
I think that there's a confusion here. The suggestion requires that the
type of the struct is included. In Ruby this is not required (there is
no named type). I don't see how adding a colon to a struct initializer
would mess up the grammar.
struct Foo
{
int a;
int b;
}
void bar(Foo foo);
bar(Foo(1, 2)); // allowed today
bar(Foo(a: 1, b: 2)); // allowed in this suggestion
bar(a: 1, b: 2); // _not_ allowed in this suggestion
--
/Jacob Carlborg
