Don wrote:
Now that we have struct literals, the old C-style struct initializers don't seem to be necessary. The variations with named initializers are not really implemented -- the example in the spec doesn't work, and most uses of them cause compiler segfaults or wrong code generation. EG...struct Move{ int D; } enum Move genMove = { D:4 }; immutable Move b = genMove;It's not difficult to fix these compiler problems, but I'm just not sure if it's worth implementing. Maybe they should just be dropped? (The { field: value } style anyway).
Funny, I've been thinking the same thing. Those initializers are pretty much obsolete, the only thing left is the field name thing. To keep the field name thing with the newer struct literals would require named function parameters as well, something doable but I'm not ready to do all the work to implement that yet.
Or just drop the field name thing, as you suggest.
