On Monday, 23 July 2018 at 17:46:12 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
I worded myself poorly. What I meant was that if a ctor
parameter has the same name as a field, then it's obviously
meant to initialize that field, so there isn't really a
conflict, you're just passing the argument to the ctor instead
of setting it directly to the struct. It would be a
horrendously bad idea to have a ctor parameter that has the
same name as a field, but is used to initialize a different
field.
[...]
If named arguments choose a different syntax then you have no
conflict. If they go with the same (i.e. option 2) then you
have seamless consistency.
[...]
Yes, this is what I was trying to get at. Thanks!
T
Hehe oops, indeed you were :p Seems I did not parse properly.
Apologies!
Cheers,
- Ali
