Travis Boucher wrote:
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
Walter Bright, el 19 de noviembre a las 23:53 me escribiste:
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.
Is nice to read that you like the idea of having named function
parameters, even when you don't have the time or don't want to implement
them :)
Whats even nicer is that dmd front end and back end are open source
allowing anyone to implement them if they really want to.
Of course it will be even nicerer once the back end is at a state where
it can be under a less restrictive license (single user, no
redistribution? seriously?).
gdc and ldc connect the dmd frontend with free backends.
Of course, it gets harder to send Walter a patch in this case, and I
would expect that such a patch is simply ignored.
