On Wednesday, 2 October 2019 at 17:54:20 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 05:37:57PM +0000, Brett via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
struct X { int a; }
X[1] x;
x[0] = {3};
or
x[0] = {a:3};
fails;
This works:
x[0] = X(123);
Should the syntax not extend to the case of array assignment?
Arguably it should. But it's mainly cosmetic, since the X(123)
syntax works just fine. (It *is* an incongruity in D's syntax,
though. It's not a big deal once you learn it, but it's a bit
counterintuitive the first time you need to use it.)
This avoids a double copy.
[...]
Which any modern optimizer would optimize away.
T
I was trying to avoid such things since X is quite long in name.
Not a huge deal... and I do not like the syntax because it looks
like a constructor call.
