export Base.@kwdef

[tk3369]

The Base.@kwdef is such a useful feature. I cannot think of any reason why it should not be exported. Is there any concern doing that?

[tk3369]

Come to think of it, another option is to support that syntax directly in the language without using any macro. Maybe that could be a 2.0 target?

[CameronBieganek]

I agree. This would be a nice feature for 1.6, since that will be the new Long-Term Support version.

[StefanKarpinski]

I had really always hoped that we'd get a better solution instead of baking @kwdef in as official 😞. At the very least it could have a better name.

[Roger-luo]

like supporting the syntax that @kwdef provides in structs? I guess all @kwdef about is having such a syntax? and it seems well adopted by the community already.

[CameronBieganek]

any updates on this?

@logankilpatrick I think you tagged the wrong person.

[cocoa1231]

I would also love to see this as a stable feature

[czimm79]

It's been almost a few years since this issue was opened. Any chance this could still happen? :)

[JeffBezanson]

From triage: yes we might as well export this. It's unfortunately too expensive to generate keyword constructors for every struct, and I don't see that changing without major changes to the language. We can however support default values for trailing fields in normal struct definitions, just like optional positional arguments. I suspect waiting for that feature (and wondering whether it is actually worthwhile) was part of what held up @kwdef.