# Some thoughts on more ergonomic Struct Update Syntax **URL:** \ **Category:** language design\ **Created:** [March 9, 2021, 4:26pm UTC](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/some-thoughts-on-more-ergonomic-struct-update-syntax/14224 "2021-03-09T16:26:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 3
**Author:** ![ekuber](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/internals.rust-lang.org/ekuber/32/1646_2.png) [@ekuber](https://internals.rust-lang.org/u/ekuber)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2021, 4:56pm UTC](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/some-thoughts-on-more-ergonomic-struct-update-syntax/14224/3 "2021-03-09T16:56:03Z")
Related, if not exactly the same > [@Pre-pre-RFC: syntactic sugar for \`Default::default()\`](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/pre-pre-rfc-syntactic-sugar-for-default-default/13234/75): > > Thanks @spacekookie! I know is a long thread so it is a good time to summarize what the RFC I'll be writing will propose, particularly because it is removed from what I originally wrote: Language support for default values on structs through const expressions: struct Car { wheel\_count: usize = 4; } Language support for partially defaulted structs: struct Person { name: String, age: i128 = 0; } Teach #[derive(Default)] to use the default values #[derive(Default)] struct P… --- _[View the full topic](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/some-thoughts-on-more-ergonomic-struct-update-syntax/14224)._