Hello grauzone,
Bill Baxter wrote:
We now have struct constructors that do basically the same thing as a
static opCall.
Non-static opCall should still be ok, for implementing functors, but
I
think having static opCall is just too confusing given struct
literals
/ struct constructors.
Right now
struct S;
S(1,2) ;
could be 1) a static opCall, 2) a constructor call 3) a struct
literal
That seems too many things sharing the same syntax to me.
I'd vote for removing struct constructors and static opcalls, and to
fix the struct initializer syntax (so that it can produce struct
literals).
--bb
Not going to happen, at run time, struct constructors superset struct literals.
It should be possible to make them do the same at compile time.
