• Matthew Gordon <Matthew_member pathlink.com> Mar 02 2005
• "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> Mar 02 2005
• "Nick Sabalausky" <z a.a> Mar 02 2005
• "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> Mar 02 2005
• "Lionello Lunesu" <lio lunesu.removethis.com> Mar 03 2005
• "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> Mar 09 2005

Matthew Gordon <Matthew_member pathlink.com> writes:

Have you considered the following perl-inspired syntax for function calls:

( d, e ) = foo( a, b, c );

Where a,b,c are in parameters and d, e are out parameters? Inout parameters
would not be needed 
because you could just write:

( b, c ) = foo( a, b );

This effectively makes b inout. 

This is effectively returning a struct from the function, but saves needing a
separate declaration. This 
style of syntax makes it clear which functions are in and out but putting the
out parameters on the 
other side of the assignment opperator. 

"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

It's been suggested. Many like it.

"Nick Sabalausky" <z a.a> writes:

"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:d05nki$1ads$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 It's been suggested. Many like it.


Heheh, I take it that means you don't?

"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

"Nick Sabalausky" <z a.a> wrote in message
news:d05um4$1gcn$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 "Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote in message
 news:d05nki$1ads$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 It's been suggested. Many like it.


 Heheh, I take it that means you don't?


I'm not too comfortable with it <g>.

"Lionello Lunesu" <lio lunesu.removethis.com> writes:

Hi..

 Heheh, I take it that means you don't?




From a compiler programmer point-of-view? (I mean, would it parse terribly?)

L. 

"Walter" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

"Lionello Lunesu" <lio lunesu.removethis.com> wrote in message
news:d06ho5$255n$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Hi..

 Heheh, I take it that means you don't?




 From a compiler programmer point-of-view? (I mean, would it parse



 (exp, exp) already has a meaning in D, and this would change that in a
context, dependent way. Not impossible, but kinda kludgy. I also just can't
escape a wince looking at it. It just doesn't look right.