On Tuesday, 24 July 2018 at 03:59:53 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
On 24/07/2018 6:43 AM, kinke wrote:
On Monday, 23 July 2018 at 17:32:23 UTC, aliak wrote:
Can we just consider that named struct init syntax *is* a
generated named constructor?
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.
+1. And hoping for the latter, seamless consistency.
Based upon my DIP that is in the queue for named arguments, it
would be trivial for this DIP to make it so a named parameter
constructor can override the default behavior and I think that
this is the best way forward.
Yes, it makes sense to review the "named arguments" DIP before
this one, any link?
