On 05/12/2017 09:01 PM, Andre Pany wrote:
On Friday, 12 May 2017 at 10:23:34 UTC, Nicholas Wilson wrote:
[...]
I'm not sure if it isi what you're looking for but you can do
struct Field
{
string location;
string locationName;
}
struct Foo
{
@Field("","B") int c;
}
[...]
I think there are cases where this syntax is more readable and there are
cases where struct initialization is more readable. In the example you
gave, I do not know what is the second field about and having to mention
the first field feels like a burden. As developer I want the choice to
decide between these 2 syntax options.
You can create the attribute separately:
enum Field a = { locationName: "B" };
@a int c;
Or if avoiding the extra symbol is more important than beauty, call a
function literal:
@((){ Field a = { locationName: "B" }; return a; }()) int c;
That's not as succinct as the syntax you propose, of course.
But your syntax (`@A = {locationName: "B"} int c;`) misses an important
detail: There's no indication what the type of the attribute is (or is
`A` supposed to be the type?). To make it work, you will have to add
that. Something like `@Field(locationName: "B")` or
`@Field{locationName: "B"}` or whatever works.
At that point, why limit it to attributes? Constructors like that would
be nice everywhere. I remember such syntax being discussed repeatedly,
but I don't know where we stand. Maybe there's a DIP already?
