On Thursday, 3 October 2019 at 04:57:44 UTC, mipri wrote:
On Thursday, 3 October 2019 at 04:33:26 UTC, Brett wrote:
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.
It is a constructor call, though. You can define your own as
well:
Technically it's a struct literal. It's only a constructor if you
define one, in which case struct literals no longer work. E.g.,
struct Foo {
int x;
this(int a, int b) { x = a + b; }
}
Without the constructor, the literal Foo(10) would be valid, but
with the constructor you'll get a compiler error.
