On Monday, 23 July 2018 at 16:57:20 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 04:26:42PM +0000, Seb via Digitalmars-d
wrote:
tl;dr: the currently proposed syntax options are:
---
struct S
{
int a = 2, b = 4, c = 6;
}
void foo()
{
bar(S({c: 10})); // Option 1
bar(S(c: 10)); // Option 2
bar(S{c: 10}); // Option 3
}
---
So the struct-initialization DIP has been stalled for too long
and I think it's time we finally get this story done.
+1.
I personally prefer option 2, but this might be in conflict to
named arguments which we hopefully see in the near future too.
Yeah.
Hence, I'm leaning forward to proposing Option 1 as the
recommended Option for the DIP (that's also what the PoC DMD
PR implements). What's your take on this?
[...]
I don't like option 1 because it resembles anonymous function
syntax and AA initialization syntax, but is actually neither.
Seeing as we already have
S s = { c : 10 };
I'd say it would be fairer to say it resembles anonymous function
syntax and AA initialisation syntax, but mostly it resembles the
existing struct initialisation syntax.
