Quite sure that this was already discussed, but.. any chance of this on D?
(one of the few things that i miss from c++)

There are a lot of places where it should make the code clear.
I always have to create shorter aliases for the most used structs. (which i think is awkward sometimes)

I know there is the case of being ambiguous with lambdas, but after reading this thread https://forum.dlang.org/thread/nud21i$o29$1@digitalmars.com
uniform initialization comes to my mind again :)

Dne 21.10.2016 v 20:49 Patric Dexheimer via Digitalmars-d napsal(a):

> Quite sure that this was already discussed, but.. any chance of this on D?
No (I hope so)
>
> There are a lot of places where it should make the code clear.
Can you elaborate on this?
> I always have to create shorter aliases for the most used structs. (which i think is awkward sometimes)
Why? (I do not see any relation to Uniform initialization)

On Friday, 21 October 2016 at 19:20:25 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
> Dne 21.10.2016 v 20:49 Patric Dexheimer via Digitalmars-d napsal(a):
>
>> Quite sure that this was already discussed, but.. any chance of this on D?
> No (I hope so)
>>
>> There are a lot of places where it should make the code clear.
> Can you elaborate on this?
>> I always have to create shorter aliases for the most used structs. (which i think is awkward sometimes)
> Why? (I do not see any relation to Uniform initialization)

egs:
//D
alias vec3 = Tuple!(float, "x", float, "y", float, "z");
vec3[] vectors = [
   vec3(1.0,0.0,1.0),
   vec3(2.0,1.0,1.0),
   vec3(3.0,2.0,1.0)
];
//C++ equivalent
vec3 vectors[] = {
   {1.0,0.0,1.0},
   {2.0,1.0,1.0},
   {3.0,2.0,1.0}
};

//D
auto return_value = get_struct(); //don´t need to write the return type
set_struct( StructName(value1, value2) );
//C++
set_struct( {value1, value2} ); //don´t need to write the argument type

//D in case of large struct names
alias v = VeryLargeStructName; //not cool
v[] vectors = [
   v(1.0,0.0,1.0),
   v(2.0,1.0,1.0),
   v(3.0,2.0,1.0)
];


I find myself falling with frequency on examples that will benefit from the c++ uniform initialization.

"No (I hope so)"

Can you explain why you think is a bad idea?

Dne 21.10.2016 v 23:21 Patric Dexheimer via Digitalmars-d napsal(a):

> On Friday, 21 October 2016 at 19:20:25 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
>> Dne 21.10.2016 v 20:49 Patric Dexheimer via Digitalmars-d napsal(a):
>>
>>> Quite sure that this was already discussed, but.. any chance of this on D?
>> No (I hope so)
>>>
>>> There are a lot of places where it should make the code clear.
>> Can you elaborate on this?
>>> I always have to create shorter aliases for the most used structs. (which i think is awkward sometimes)
>> Why? (I do not see any relation to Uniform initialization)
>
> egs:
> //D
> alias vec3 = Tuple!(float, "x", float, "y", float, "z");
> vec3[] vectors = [
>    vec3(1.0,0.0,1.0),
>    vec3(2.0,1.0,1.0),
>    vec3(3.0,2.0,1.0)
> ];
> //C++ equivalent
> vec3 vectors[] = {
>    {1.0,0.0,1.0},
>    {2.0,1.0,1.0},
>    {3.0,2.0,1.0}
> };

this works for D too:

import std.stdio;

struct S
{
    int a;
    int b;
}
void main()
{
    S[] s = [{ 1, 2 }];
    writeln(s[0]);
}
>
>
> //D
> auto return_value = get_struct(); //don´t need to write the return type
> set_struct( StructName(value1, value2) );
> //C++
> set_struct( {value1, value2} ); //don´t need to write the argument type
OK this does not work but I do not think it is releated to Uniform initialization, but it is more something like cast to parametr type or something like that
>
> Can you explain why you think is a bad idea?
Because there is no need. In c++ it is disaster because there is milion way how to initialize something, it is really hard to understand and inconsistent

S[] s = [{ 1, 2 }];

Nice, did´n knew that it worked.

On Friday, 21 October 2016 at 21:41:16 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
> Because there is no need. In c++ it is disaster because there is milion way how to initialize something, it is really hard to understand and inconsistent

I never really felt lost about it with c++, but the argument holds true anyway :)

On Saturday, 22 October 2016 at 21:26:53 UTC, Patric Dexheimer wrote:
> S[] s = [{ 1, 2 }];
>
> Nice, did´n knew that it worked.
>
> On Friday, 21 October 2016 at 21:41:16 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
>> Because there is no need. In c++ it is disaster because there is milion way how to initialize something, it is really hard to understand and inconsistent
>
> I never really felt lost about it with c++, but the argument holds true anyway :)

There has been a abandoned proposal for struct initialization:
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/22

On Sunday, 23 October 2016 at 01:31:47 UTC, Seb wrote:
> On Saturday, 22 October 2016 at 21:26:53 UTC, Patric Dexheimer wrote:
>> S[] s = [{ 1, 2 }];
>>
>> Nice, did´n knew that it worked.
>>
>> On Friday, 21 October 2016 at 21:41:16 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
>>> Because there is no need. In c++ it is disaster because there is milion way how to initialize something, it is really hard to understand and inconsistent
>>
>> I never really felt lost about it with c++, but the argument holds true anyway :)
>
> There has been a abandoned proposal for struct initialization:
> https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/pull/22

It has been closed only because of inactivity.