Toggling explicit struct initialization per struct via attribute

[kulkalkul]

ZII is perfect for some tasks, but sometimes I know that given struct is always initialized. So, adding new fields to a struct definition adds possibility of breaking this guarantee as uninitialized fields can go unnoticed. It is possible to overcome this using initialization functions, but I find that it becomes necessity for such structs, makes those functions constructor-like. I also enjoy using struct initialization when possible.

As a solution, an attribute can be added for each struct initialization literal (pardon the term if wrong).

Struct definition (nothing special here):

struct Foo {
  int a;
  int b;
  int c;
  int d;
}

Expression:

@nopartial Foo {
  .a = 5,
  .b = 2,
  .d = 1,
  // compile error, as c is forgotten
}

Attribute at initialization location would allow same struct to be used with both ZII fields and explicit initialization, while preventing hard to follow bugs within big codebases.

[lerno]

I am not sure how you mean the initializer, that is in no way correct C3.

[kulkalkul]

Foo foo = Foo { .a = 5, };

I'm talking about the part in right hand side. So, the above code would work as-is

Foo foo = Foo { .a = 5, } @nopartial;

This would error out as fields b, c, and d are missing (I don't know where is the good place for nopartial). So, this allows user to choose whether they want it partial or not per struct "initialization"

[lerno]

That is indeed the right location from a parsing point of view. I only have some doubts as to whether it should be included. C has had .foo = 5 initialization for ages, so is there some similar attribute in GCC?

[kulkalkul]

I don't know, I'm unfortunately not a C programmer 😅 It was something that annoyed me while using Odin, that's why I asked about whether something similar exists in C3 (on discord), which prompted me to create the issue. I read that C3's goal is to stay compatible with C as much as it can, that's also the theme I get from your comment above; so in that case, I agree that it'd probably feel out of place for the language

[lerno]

Adding attributes are in general fine. I just want to make sure all features are used.