digitalmars.D - Re: foo!(bar) ==> foo{bar}
- ore-sama <spam here.lot> Oct 07 2008
- "Denis Koroskin" <2korden gmail.com> Oct 07 2008
- Tomas Lindquist Olsen <tomas famolsen.dk> Oct 07 2008
Walter Bright Wrote:The foo.(bar) syntax seems to be sinking. The foo{bar} seems to be the most practical alternative. So, how about putting it in the next D2 release on a trial basis, so people can try it out and see how it looks?
How about struct initializers syntax? I don't know what are you planning to do with it, Lars proposed to use curly braces. This can interfere (a little) with template instantiation syntax.
Oct 07 2008
On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:40:15 +0400, ore-sama <spam here.lot> wrote:Walter Bright Wrote:The foo.(bar) syntax seems to be sinking. The foo{bar} seems to be the most practical alternative. So, how about putting it in the next D2 release on a trial basis, so people can try it out and see how it looks?
How about struct initializers syntax? I don't know what are you planning to do with it, Lars proposed to use curly braces. This can interfere (a little) with template instantiation syntax.
Yeah, dropping the q{} stuff opens the way to initialize struct using StructName{ ... } syntax: http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.com&group=digitalmars.D.announce&artnum=12862
Oct 07 2008
Denis Koroskin wrote:On Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:40:15 +0400, ore-sama <spam here.lot> wrote:Walter Bright Wrote:The foo.(bar) syntax seems to be sinking. The foo{bar} seems to be the most practical alternative. So, how about putting it in the next D2 release on a trial basis, so people can try it out and see how it looks?
How about struct initializers syntax? I don't know what are you planning to do with it, Lars proposed to use curly braces. This can interfere (a little) with template instantiation syntax.
Yeah, dropping the q{} stuff opens the way to initialize struct using StructName{ ... } syntax: http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.com&group=digitalmars.D.a nounce&artnum=12862
Funny thing is the argument with conflicting with q{} was used extensively during that discussion, now it's somehow become a non issue.
Oct 07 2008