On Wednesday, 3 August 2016 at 20:30:07 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Sunday, 31 July 2016 at 14:38:33 UTC, Lodovico Giaretta
wrote:
I support this idea of extending curly-brace initializers. It
would be very useful and less ambiguous than parenthesized
initializers.
Curly braces are already extremely overloaded. They can start a
block statement, a delegate literal, a struct literal and I'm
sure I forgot something.
Is there a better choice? StructInitializer [1] is already part
of the grammar.
It would be inconsistent to use anything else, e.g.
S x = { a:1, b:2}; // already works
x = { a:3, b:4}; // why shouldn't this work?
[1]: http://dlang.org/spec/grammar.html#StructInitializer
