digitalmars.D - Idea for getting rid of "static" on methods

Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> Nov 30 2007

"Craig Black" <cblack ara.com> Nov 30 2007

"Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> Nov 30 2007
Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> Nov 30 2007

Matti Niemenmaa <see_signature for.real.address> Nov 30 2007

Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> Nov 30 2007

Matti Niemenmaa <see_signature for.real.address> Nov 30 2007

Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> Nov 30 2007
BCS <BCS pathlink.com> Nov 30 2007

Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> Nov 30 2007
Matti Niemenmaa <see_signature for.real.address> Dec 01 2007

BCS <ao pathlink.com> Dec 02 2007
Sebastian Beschke <s.beschke gmx.de> Dec 02 2007

Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> Nov 30 2007

Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> Nov 30 2007

Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:

Nobody likes how overused static is, so here's an idea for a syntax to 
replace it in one place where it is frequently seen.

Here it goes:

    (with out this) int my_method() {...}

badum -ching!

--bb

Nov 30 2007

"Craig Black" <cblack ara.com> writes:

"Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote in message 
news:fipjds$cft$1 digitalmars.com...
 Nobody likes how overused static is, so here's an idea for a syntax to 
 replace it in one place where it is frequently seen.

 Here it goes:

    (with out this) int my_method() {...}

 badum -ching!

 --bb


What are you joking about?  Did someone suggest getting rid of static?

Nov 30 2007

"Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> writes:

On 11/30/07, Craig Black <cblack ara.com> wrote:
 What are you joking about?


I'm sure he's joking. He's figured out that "with", "out" and "this"
are all keywords, and when put together make a readable phrase. :)
It's really quite clever, but I'd be surprised if it was a serious
suggestion.

Nov 30 2007

Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:

Craig Black wrote:
 "Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote in message 
 news:fipjds$cft$1 digitalmars.com...
 Nobody likes how overused static is, so here's an idea for a syntax to 
 replace it in one place where it is frequently seen.

 Here it goes:

    (with out this) int my_method() {...}

 badum -ching!

 --bb


 What are you joking about?  Did someone suggest getting rid of static? 


Not recently, but it always comes up top on the list of confusingly 
overused keywords.

I was just thinking about it a little because adding const(this) would 
kind of make static stick out.  I was trying to think of some way static 
on methods could be made more parallel with const(this).  Something like 
no(this) was the first thing that came to mind, but that's not a keyword 
so I went trolling through the keyword index to see if there was 
anything else suitable.  But the best I could come up with sounded more 
like a feeble attempt at humor than a real solution.

--bb

Nov 30 2007

Matti Niemenmaa <see_signature for.real.address> writes:

Bill Baxter wrote:
 Something like no(this) was the first thing that came to mind, but that's not
 a keyword so I went trolling through the keyword index to see if there was 
 anything else suitable.


How about:

(!this)            int my_method() {...}
(!in this)         int my_method() {...}
(with !this)       int my_method() {...}
(!with this)       int my_method() {...}
(is !in this)      int my_method() {...}
(!is in this)      int my_method() {...}
(this !is in this) int my_method() {...}
(this is !in this) int my_method() {...}

Where in the latter two, the first 'this' of course refers to the method.

-- 
E-mail address: matti.niemenmaa+news, domain is iki (DOT) fi

Nov 30 2007

Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:

Matti Niemenmaa wrote:
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 Something like no(this) was the first thing that came to mind, but that's not
 a keyword so I went trolling through the keyword index to see if there was 
 anything else suitable.


 How about:
 
 (!this)            int my_method() {...}
 (!in this)         int my_method() {...}
 (with !this)       int my_method() {...}
 (!with this)       int my_method() {...}
 (is !in this)      int my_method() {...}
 (!is in this)      int my_method() {...}
 (this !is in this) int my_method() {...}
 (this is !in this) int my_method() {...}
 
 Where in the latter two, the first 'this' of course refers to the method.
 


Now you're on to something!  Just tweak that last one slightly:

   (this is !in function) int my_method() {...}

Perfect!

:-P

Nov 30 2007

Matti Niemenmaa <see_signature for.real.address> writes:

Bill Baxter wrote:
 Now you're on to something!  Just tweak that last one slightly:
 
   (this is !in function) int my_method() {...}
 
 Perfect!


Nah, this one's perfect:

(this function is !in this class) int my_method() {...}

-- 
E-mail address: matti.niemenmaa+news, domain is iki (DOT) fi

Nov 30 2007

Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:

Matti Niemenmaa wrote:
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 Now you're on to something!  Just tweak that last one slightly:

   (this is !in function) int my_method() {...}

 Perfect!


 Nah, this one's perfect:
 
 (this function is !in this class) int my_method() {...}
 



(this function is !in this instanceof this class) int my_method() {...}

Nov 30 2007

BCS <BCS pathlink.com> writes:

Matti Niemenmaa wrote:
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 
Now you're on to something!  Just tweak that last one slightly:

  (this is !in function) int my_method() {...}

Perfect!


 
 Nah, this one's perfect:
 
 (this function is !in this class) int my_method() {...}
 


Free kudos* to the first person to get a haiku of key words to compile. 
Anyone want to go for a limerick?


* kudos will consist of "well done ____" being posted where ____ is 
replaced with the name of the person awarded said kudos.

Nov 30 2007

Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:

BCS wrote:
 Matti Niemenmaa wrote:
 Bill Baxter wrote:

 Now you're on to something!  Just tweak that last one slightly:

  (this is !in function) int my_method() {...}

 Perfect!



 Nah, this one's perfect:

 (this function is !in this class) int my_method() {...}


 Free kudos* to the first person to get a haiku of key words to compile. 
 Anyone want to go for a limerick?
 
 
 * kudos will consist of "well done ____" being posted where ____ is 
 replaced with the name of the person awarded said kudos.


Problem is, most keywords don't work too close to each other. If you 
allow arbitrary identifiers, too easy.

Nov 30 2007

Matti Niemenmaa <see_signature for.real.address> writes:

BCS wrote:
 Free kudos* to the first person to get a haiku of key words to compile.


protected static
this() { if (new short) assert (is(
typeof(typeid(int)))); }

 Anyone want to go for a limerick?


static assert (is(typeof(new short)));
static this() { if (new short is new short)
	volatile if (true)
	try { debug null; do {}
while (false); } catch { return new ushort;}}

Both compile with 1.024. With 2.0 one could probably use the const stuff to good
effect.

-- 
E-mail address: matti.niemenmaa+news, domain is iki (DOT) fi

Dec 01 2007

BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:

Reply to Matti,

 BCS wrote:
 
 Free kudos* to the first person to get a haiku of key words to
 compile.
 


 this() { if (new short) assert (is(
 typeof(typeid(int)))); }
 Anyone want to go for a limerick?
 


 static this() { if (new short is new short)
 volatile if (true)
 try { debug null; do {}
 while (false); } catch { return new ushort;}}
 Both compile with 1.024. With 2.0 one could probably use the const
 stuff to good effect.
 


well done Matti!!!

That is cool.

Dec 02 2007

Sebastian Beschke <s.beschke gmx.de> writes:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Matti Niemenmaa schrieb:
 BCS wrote:
 Free kudos* to the first person to get a haiku of key words to compile.


 protected static
 this() { if (new short) assert (is(
 typeof(typeid(int)))); }
 
 Anyone want to go for a limerick?


 static assert (is(typeof(new short)));
 static this() { if (new short is new short)
 	volatile if (true)
 	try { debug null; do {}
 while (false); } catch { return new ushort;}}
 
 Both compile with 1.024. With 2.0 one could probably use the const stuff to
good
 effect.
 


OMG.

Well done Matti.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHU1VuKb/1n5A2TAMRAh/TAJ0bo2rJlbIQaaF8gE2hy225PonKYgCfSqpG
VKD0g+HUK/VByPhzfL/n1i8=
=z6N3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Dec 02 2007

Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> writes:

Matti Niemenmaa, el 30 de noviembre a las 21:11 me escribiste:
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 Now you're on to something!  Just tweak that last one slightly:
 
   (this is !in function) int my_method() {...}
 
 Perfect!


 Nah, this one's perfect:
 
 (this function is !in this class) int my_method() {...}


The obvious missing one is:

 (class function with out this) int my_method() {...}


-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oiganmen ñatos de corazón, es más posible que un potus florezca en
primavera a que un ángel pase con una remera.
	-- Peperino Pómoro

Nov 30 2007

Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:

Matti Niemenmaa wrote:
 (this is !in this) int my_method() {...}


You get an oatmeal rasin cookie for that! And an easter egg in the 
Descent parser that won't mark that as a syntax error if I'm feeling bored.

Nov 30 2007

D Programming

C/C++ Programming

Other

digitalmars.D - Idea for getting rid of "static" on methods