Walter Bright wrote:
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.
Dropping the whole lot would make it easier to identify delegate
literals. I think the code below is quite wierd.
struct A { int x; }
alias void delegate () B;
void bar1(A a) {}
void bar2(B b) {}
void main()
{
A a = { };
B b = { };
bar1(a); // ok
bar2(b); // ok
bar1( {} ); // fails. And you can't even do: bar1( cast(A){} );
bar2( {} ); // ok
}
I suspect that there are all kinds of odd corner cases involving these
guys, which haven't been explored.
