import std.stdio;

struct AA
{
    int i;
    char c;
    double d;
    string s;
    float f;
}

struct BB
{
    float f;
    AA[2] a;
}

void print(BB* bb)
{
    writefln("bb.a[0].i=%d bb.f=%f", bb.a[0].i, bb.f);
}

void main()
{
    //dlang
    AA aa = {
        i:1010,
        f:0.1f
    };

    BB bb = {
        f : 0.2f,
        a : [
                AA(1010, 0,0,null,0.1f),
                AA(1020,0,0,null,0.2f)
            ]
    };

    print(&bb);

    /************************************************/
    /*

    //C99
    print( &(BB){
        .f = 0.2f,
        .a = {
            [0] = { .i = 1010, .f = 0.1f }
            [1] = { .i = 1020, .f = 0.2f }
        }
    });

    */
}


dlang version has two unnecessary symbols aa and bb, which is ugly compare to c99 one.

On Wednesday, 12 December 2018 at 09:49:58 UTC, elvisxzhou wrote:
> import std.stdio;
>
> struct AA
> {
>     int i;
>     char c;
>     double d;
>     string s;
>     float f;
> }
>
> struct BB
> {
>     float f;
>     AA[2] a;
> }
>
> void print(BB* bb)
> {
>     writefln("bb.a[0].i=%d bb.f=%f", bb.a[0].i, bb.f);
> }
>
> void main()
> {
>     //dlang
>     AA aa = {
>         i:1010,
>         f:0.1f
>     };
>
>     BB bb = {
>         f : 0.2f,
>         a : [
>                 AA(1010, 0,0,null,0.1f),
>                 AA(1020,0,0,null,0.2f)
>             ]
>     };
>
>     print(&bb);
>
>     /************************************************/
>     /*
>
>     //C99
>     print( &(BB){
>         .f = 0.2f,
>         .a = {
>             [0] = { .i = 1010, .f = 0.1f }
>             [1] = { .i = 1020, .f = 0.2f }
>         }
>     });
>
>     */
> }
>
>
> dlang version has two unnecessary symbols aa and bb, which is ugly compare to c99 one.

aa is already eliminated in the example, but you know where the ugly is.

On 12/12/18 4:49 AM, elvisxzhou wrote:
> dlang version has two unnecessary symbols aa and bb, which is ugly compare to c99 one.
> 

Well, this works:

    BB bb = {
        f : 0.2f,
        a : [
            {i:1010, f:0.1f}, // note the nested field name syntax
            {i:1020, f:0.2f}
            ]
    };

    writeln(bb);

But you can't use that syntax for expressions, only for initialization.

So, no you can't get rid of the bb if you want to use that syntax.

Or you can just create a factory function to do what you want.

-Steve