Embed Notice

@humm @thephd

I think that would just complicate the language a little

compilers already type check the value you’re passing in against the the function prototype, and error out on missmatch, so they already have the information required to assume the type of a given compound literal, there’s not really much complex added here

except maybe if you consider not having the type name as a cognitive complexity (“what type is this literal making?” kinda deal), but this kinda goes for variables too, they don’t require writing out their type, nor does other literals most of the time

the only possible issue i see is maybe syntax ambiguity with the { foo, nya, mew } way of doing compound literals, without the .field, it could maybe confuse the compiler with an array if the members happen to be all the same type