• "Janice Caron" <caron serenityfirefly.com> Sep 06 2007
• Kirk McDonald <kirklin.mcdonald gmail.com> Sep 06 2007

"Janice Caron" <caron serenityfirefly.com> writes:

-----Original Message-----
From: digitalmars-d-bounces puremagic.com 
[mailto:digitalmars-d-bounces puremagic.com] On Behalf Of Kirk McDonald
Sent: 06 September 2007 09:14
To: digitalmars-d puremagic.com
Subject: Re: dst = src rather than src dst

 I just don't particularly like it very much. This is primarily because
 it's merely a syntax change.


D is an evolving language. It's had lots of syntax changes in the past.


 If the old syntax is retained, we have redundant syntaxes, which is annoying 
 and not a good thing.


Hmmm....

 char[] x;
 char x[];

Double Hmmm....

 void f(static int x) {...}
 void f(int x)() {...}
 template f(int x) { void f() {...} }

Hmmm again...

 find(s,'\n');
 s.find('\n');


 Before removing the current syntax, we have to of course consider
 the existing body of code which would have to be changed.


No one is suggesting making the old syntax illegal.


 Remember when implicit .ptr conversion was removed?


No one is suggesting making the old syntax illegal.


 Removing the existing syntax is Not An Option


No one is suggesting making the old syntax illegal.

Kirk McDonald <kirklin.mcdonald gmail.com> writes:

Janice Caron wrote:
 -----Original Message-----
 From: digitalmars-d-bounces puremagic.com 
 [mailto:digitalmars-d-bounces puremagic.com] On Behalf Of Kirk McDonald
 Sent: 06 September 2007 09:14
 To: digitalmars-d puremagic.com
 Subject: Re: dst = src rather than src dst
 
 I just don't particularly like it very much. This is primarily because
 it's merely a syntax change.


 D is an evolving language. It's had lots of syntax changes in the past.
 
 If the old syntax is retained, we have redundant syntaxes, which is 
 annoying and not a good thing.


 Hmmm....
 
 char[] x;
 char x[];
 


This is precisely the sort of thing I'm talking about. I'd list this as 
a case where the increased clarity of the new syntax is absolutely worth 
it, but these redundant syntaxes are still annoying and I don't like the 
fact we have to have 'em.

 Double Hmmm....
 
 void f(static int x) {...}
 void f(int x)() {...}
 template f(int x) { void f() {...} }
 


The second and third forms you have here aren't so much redundant syntax 
as the full syntax and the shorthand syntactic sugar for same. The first 
syntax is different, in that you call it differently:

f(1);
// vs
f!(2);

 Hmmm again...
 
 find(s,'\n');
 s.find('\n');
 


This I'll grant you. However, when this gets working for all types, it 
will be less a syntactic redundancy and more of an orginizational 
nicety. (You'll be able to split some methods out of a class, and 
perhaps into a seperate module, or even extend an existing class with 
your own "methods.")

I've already spent more time in this thread than I intended to. Despise 
this, /I don't care that much/ about whether this syntax is added. If it 
were put to a vote, I would abstain. I'm merely pointing out that adding 
new syntax which does not actually do anything new should on principle 
be avoided.

-- 
Kirk McDonald
http://kirkmcdonald.blogspot.com
Pyd: Connecting D and Python
http://pyd.dsource.org