Re: Struct Initialization syntax

[Neia Neutuladh via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 23 July 2018 at 16:26:42 UTC, Seb wrote:
I personally prefer option 2, but this might be in conflict to 
named arguments which we hopefully see in the near future too. 
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?

If we have named arguments that can be reordered and, when they 
have default values, omitted, we don't really need a special 
struct initialization syntax. We just need the compiler to 
generate the implicit struct constructor in the obvious way, like:

struct S
{
  string a = "field a!";
  int b = 10;
  // compiler-generated
  this(<string a = "field a!", int b = 10>) {...}
}
writeln(S(a: "hello", b: 15));

Similarly, struct initializer syntax everywhere slightly reduces 
the need for named arguments, albeit with some inconvenience:

// named args style
void drawRect(<int x, int y, int width, int height, string 
color>) {}
// struct style
struct DrawRect
{
  int x, y, width, height;
  string color;
}
void drawRect(DrawRect rect) {}