On Wednesday, 3 August 2016 at 20:43:25 UTC, Enamex wrote:
On Wednesday, 3 August 2016 at 20:30:07 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
On Sunday, 31 July 2016 at 14:38:33 UTC, Lodovico Giaretta
wrote:
I support this idea of extending curly-brace initializers. It
would be very useful and less ambiguous than parenthesized
initializers.
Curly braces are already extremely overloaded. They can start
a block statement, a delegate literal, a struct literal and
I'm sure I forgot something.
Well, this extended case would fall under "struct literal". And
personally I'm against starting function literals with just a
brace (always use `(){...}` instead).
It doesn't matter that there is already a struct literal syntax,
and that it also a struct literal syntax, the parser have to
support both.
It doesn't matter what you like or don't like, the parser have to
support it.
