Re: Concerns about using struct initializer in UDA?

[Andre Pany via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 12 May 2017 at 19:33:52 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
On 05/12/2017 09:01 PM, Andre Pany wrote:
[...]
[...]
 [...]
[...]
[...]

You can create the attribute separately:

    enum Field a = { locationName: "B" };
    @a int c;

Or if avoiding the extra symbol is more important than beauty, 
call a function literal:

    @((){ Field a = { locationName: "B" }; return a; }()) int c;

That's not as succinct as the syntax you propose, of course.

But your syntax (`@A = {locationName: "B"} int c;`) misses an 
important detail: There's no indication what the type of the 
attribute is (or is `A` supposed to be the type?). To make it 
work, you will have to add that. Something like 
`@Field(locationName: "B")` or `@Field{locationName: "B"}` or 
whatever works.

At that point, why limit it to attributes? Constructors like 
that would be nice everywhere. I remember such syntax being 
discussed repeatedly, but I don't know where we stand. Maybe 
there's a DIP already?

Yes, A is supposed to be the type. I have included the equal sign 
to to match the existing struct initializer as far as possible.

I would like to limit the dip to increase the chances the dip is 
accepted.

Kind regards
André