On Saturday, 5 October 2024 at 06:35:57 UTC, ryuukk_ wrote:

struct EntityDef
{
    struct
    {
        int hp;
    }
}

struct EntityDef
{
    struct
    {
        int hp;
    } stats;
}

struct EntityDef
{
    struct Stats
    {
        int hp;
    } Stats stats;
}

The problem is clear. What I do not agree with is your tone. I am noone here, but I think it is not good to tolerate this level. It sets a bad precedent.

Just my 2 cents.

On Tuesday, 8 October 2024 at 18:24:50 UTC, germandiago wrote:

This has come up many times before. The powers that be have been clear that this type of post is pefectly acceptable and anyone that doesn't like it should leave.

On Tuesday, 8 October 2024 at 18:24:50 UTC, germandiago wrote:

struct EntityDef
{
    struct
    {
        int hp;
    }
}

struct EntityDef
{
    struct
    {
        int hp;
    } stats;
}

struct EntityDef
{
    struct Stats
    {
        int hp;
    } Stats stats;
}

I'm not a big fan of using declarations as type either:

bool doWeWantThat( struct{ int notsure;} p)
{
    return false;
}

in the same way, named fields in tuples is an aberration to me, because "why not use a struct instead ?"

On Wednesday, 9 October 2024 at 01:16:29 UTC, Boaz Ampleman wrote:

bool doWeWantThat( struct{ int notsure;} p)
{
    return false;
}

Here (int notsure) p would read much better. And we want tuple syntax in the language anyway so we can do destructuring.

When it's a singleton type used in a place you can't declare a struct. Naming tuple fields makes for clearer code rather than having to remember an index in code reviews to decipher what's happening.