• Dan (15/15) Dec 04 2012 At the risk of being too persistent, curious as to the reason for
• Tavi Cacina (3/18) Dec 04 2012 I like this syntax too. I think/hope that for static stuff it

"Dan" <dbdavidson yahoo.com> writes:

At the risk of being too persistent, curious as to the reason for 
disdain for named field initialization syntax and talk of its 
deprecation.

- does it cause problems?
- is it on the chopping block?
- is this the best way to find out the status of a specific issue 
like this?

This was originally asked in the learn forum. I see benefits to 
the syntax - but I may be off base:
http://forum.dlang.org/post/oetijisdqjgcuvfvojiy forum.dlang.org

An additional similar question:
http://forum.dlang.org/post/zknqlojefvccnbpmnvae forum.dlang.org

Any insights as to where this feature is going are appreciated.

Thanks,
Dan

"Tavi Cacina" <octavian.cacina outlook.com> writes:

I like this syntax too. I think/hope that for static stuff it 
will be here to stay.

On Tuesday, 4 December 2012 at 16:25:12 UTC, Dan wrote:
 At the risk of being too persistent, curious as to the reason 
 for disdain for named field initialization syntax and talk of 
 its deprecation.

 - does it cause problems?
 - is it on the chopping block?
 - is this the best way to find out the status of a specific 
 issue like this?

 This was originally asked in the learn forum. I see benefits to 
 the syntax - but I may be off base:
 http://forum.dlang.org/post/oetijisdqjgcuvfvojiy forum.dlang.org

 An additional similar question:
 http://forum.dlang.org/post/zknqlojefvccnbpmnvae forum.dlang.org

 Any insights as to where this feature is going are appreciated.

 Thanks,
 Dan