This should be allowed:

struct Data
{
    int a;
    int b;
    int c;
    @disable this();
}

my_fun( Data { c: 1 } );

And in a perfect world:

my_fun( { c: 1 } );

On Friday, 30 August 2024 at 16:02:38 UTC, ryuukk_ wrote:

struct Data
{
    int a;
    int b;
    int c;
    @disable this();
}

my_fun( Data { c: 1 } );

the debate is about nested stucts being spooky

struct nullable(T){
  T get; alias get this;
  bool isnull=false;
  ...
}
struct runtime{
  this(int i){
    i.writeln;
}}
nullable!T somethingfailable(T)(T t){
  return nullable!T(isnull:true);
}

the compiler gets confused, whats a somethingfailable.get?

Im of the strong opinion that d should just let spookiness happen, if "ctfe this" fails to produce sane results, thats on the programmer, let it happen; but you "need" to "solve" the "problem" to suggest changes here.

On Friday, 30 August 2024 at 16:02:38 UTC, ryuukk_ wrote:

struct Data
{
    int a;
    int b;
    int c;
    @disable this();
}

my_fun( Data { c: 1 } );

I'm not understanding the @disable this()

Without that, this works:

struct Data
{
    int a;
    int b;
    int c;
}

void my_fun(Data data) {}

void main()
{
    my_fun( Data (c: 1 ) );
}

I tried making Data also have a ctor with all defaults, but it doesn't like that.

-Steve

On Friday, 30 August 2024 at 19:37:22 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

struct Data
{
    int a;
    int b;
    int c;
    @disable this();
}

my_fun( Data { c: 1 } );

struct Data
{
    int a;
    int b;
    int c;
}

void my_fun(Data data) {}

void main()
{
    my_fun( Data (c: 1 ) );
}

brackets vs parenthesis, no ctor

it's popular among C and newest languages (the irony), data first

D lags behind, as usual

    state.pip = sg_make_pipeline(&(sg_pipeline_desc){
        .layout = {
            /* test to provide buffer stride, but no attr offsets */
            .buffers[0].stride = 28,
            .attrs = {
                [ATTR_vs_position].format = SG_VERTEXFORMAT_FLOAT3,
                [ATTR_vs_color0].format   = SG_VERTEXFORMAT_FLOAT4
            }
        },
        .shader = shd,
        .index_type = SG_INDEXTYPE_UINT16,
        .cull_mode = SG_CULLMODE_BACK,
        .depth = {
            .write_enabled = true,
            .compare = SG_COMPAREFUNC_LESS_EQUAL,
        },
        .label = "cube-pipeline"
    });

Today i tried this:

struct Test
{
    int test;
}

struct Data
{
    Test[8] test;
}

void add(Data data)
{
}

extern(C) void main()
{
    add( Data(test: [ {test: 1}] ) );
}

it refuses to compile:

onlineapp.d(19): Error: found `}` when expecting `;` following expression
onlineapp.d(19):        expression: `1`
onlineapp.d(19): Error: found `]` instead of statement
onlineapp.d(21): Error: found `End of File` when expecting `,`
onlineapp.d(19): Error: found `End of File` when expecting `]`
onlineapp.d(21): Error: found `End of File` when expecting `)`
onlineapp.d(21): Error: found `End of File` when expecting `)`
onlineapp.d(21): Error: found `End of File` when expecting `;` following expression
onlineapp.d(19):        expression: `add(Data(test: [()
{
test:
1;
__error__
}
]))`
onlineapp.d(21): Error: matching `}` expected following compound statement, not `End of File`
onlineapp.d(18):        unmatched `{`

D worse than C with these stupid RAII, give me proper way to initialize a struct instead of giving me a broken constructor i'm not even using

On Thursday, 12 September 2024 at 12:14:17 UTC, ryuukk_ wrote:

struct Test
{
    int test;
}

struct Data
{
    Test[8] test;
}

void add(Data data)
{
}

extern(C) void main()
{
    add( Data(test: [ {test: 1}] ) );
}

struct Test
{
    int test;
}

struct Data
{
    Test[8] test;
}

void add(Data data)
{
}

extern(C) void main()
{
    add(Data(Test(1).repeat(8).array.to!(Test[8])));
}

What did you expect to initializing an array of 8 elements with 1 value? all the same?

On Thursday, 12 September 2024 at 13:10:09 UTC, Sergey wrote:

struct Test
{
    int test;
}

struct Data
{
    Test[8] test;
}

void add(Data data)
{
}

extern(C) void main()
{
    add( Data(test: [ {test: 1}] ) );
}

struct Test
{
    int test;
}

struct Data
{
    Test[8] test;
}

void add(Data data)
{
}

extern(C) void main()
{
    add(Data(Test(1).repeat(8).array.to!(Test[8])));
}

What did i expect?.. right i expect to switch language as soon as i find an alternative

Besides

Test[8] test = Test.init; // <- works

Data data = { test: Test.init }; // <- works

char[256] path = "/dev/null"; // <- works

Again, what do YOU expect?

D people still don't understand why the language is not more popular and why people leave after they play with it

I grew tired of trying to explain people how shitty things are for so long, wake up please

I'm not sure if you are joking or not, i'll pretend this was a mistake of yours

On Thursday, 12 September 2024 at 13:46:55 UTC, ryuukk_ wrote:

I see now what you want. Wasnt clear for me from the first look.
Only named example worked yeah