Walter Bright Wrote:

> The foo.(bar) syntax seems to be sinking. The foo{bar} seems to be the most practical alternative. So, how about putting it in the next D2 release on a trial basis, so people can try it out and see how it looks?

How about struct initializers syntax? I don't know what are you planning to do with it, Lars proposed to use curly braces. This can interfere (a little) with template instantiation syntax.

On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:40:15 +0400, ore-sama <spam@here.lot> wrote:

> Walter Bright Wrote:
>
>> The foo.(bar) syntax seems to be sinking. The foo{bar} seems to be the
>> most practical alternative. So, how about putting it in the next D2
>> release on a trial basis, so people can try it out and see how it looks?
>
> How about struct initializers syntax? I don't know what are you planning to do with it, Lars proposed to use curly braces. This can interfere (a little) with template instantiation syntax.

Yeah, dropping the q{} stuff opens the way to initialize struct using StructName{ ... } syntax:
http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.com&group=digitalmars.D.announce&artnum=12862

Denis Koroskin wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:40:15 +0400, ore-sama <spam@here.lot> wrote:
> 
>> Walter Bright Wrote:
>>
>>> The foo.(bar) syntax seems to be sinking. The foo{bar} seems to be the
>>> most practical alternative. So, how about putting it in the next D2
>>> release on a trial basis, so people can try it out and see how it looks?
>>
>> How about struct initializers syntax? I don't know what are you planning to do with it, Lars proposed to use curly braces. This can interfere (a little) with template instantiation syntax.
> 
> Yeah, dropping the q{} stuff opens the way to initialize struct using StructName{ ... } syntax:
> http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.com&group=digitalmars.D.announce&artnum=12862 
> 

Funny thing is the argument with conflicting with q{} was used extensively during that discussion, now it's somehow become a non issue.