On Wednesday, 13 February 2013 at 10:35:08 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
My suggestion is for anonymous structs, nothing else. It can
only contain declarations of fields. I would thought that was
pretty clear, especially since the subject says "Anonymous
structs" and not something like "Anonymous delegates".
I'm aware of that.
I also showed how the syntax is lowered into a regular named
struct, which would make things even more clear. But apparently
not.
Is my English so bad or is it just the idea that is so bad?
More like how to make it syntactically proper/unambiguous &
compatible so the compiler could identify and use it properly;
Sudden new use(s) of code blocks without somehow clarifying it's
intended use (before hand) could be a problem, or worse yet,
prevent something better later if it's introduced & used (and you
get the same C++ issues where you can't fix/change something
without breaking anything relying on a defined feature).
Remember, just cause it seems simple (to us) doesn't mean it's
simple.
Maybe I'm thinking too far ahead... How much extra complexity
would be be to add the feature? If we're using say Lex & Yacc for
example a simple feature would be only a couple lines; If you
need to make whole new branch(es) then it may not be a good idea.
If it requires complex rules, then it may not be reliable as we
won't remember them all while we're programming.
