On Tuesday, 31 December 2013 at 02:28:45 UTC, Ritu wrote:
> 1. The ability to have a user-defined default constructor for structs. I believe this is not possible since it does not go well with D's metaprogramming.

If this is for a DSL, can't you make it so situations that lower to default construction use a function initializer? It would be completely opaque from the user's perspective. I don't think language details should ever be relevant to a DSL; it seems to me that you should always be able to work around it.

Sorry if this is impractical, I haven't read the thread super closely.