• "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= (12/12) Aug 26 2014 I have spent some time thinking about how the D syntax can be
• "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= (22/26) Aug 26 2014 And in case anyone wonders, I was thinking that perhaps the order
• "Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?= <schuetzm gmx.net> (5/16) Aug 26 2014 Apart from the fact that I find this harder to read than simply
• "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= (6/9) Aug 26 2014 Pretend I use forward-ticks ´x+´y :-)

"Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:

I have spent some time thinking about how the D syntax can be 
polished by adding sugar. I wonder if this would be possible to 
implement in the parser:


IN:
(int`x + int`y) * `y

OUT:
(int __1,int __2) => (__1 + __2) * __2


IN:
callTemplate!(`mycmp`(`a,1+2))

OUT:
calltemplate!("mycmp(a," ~ __to_string( 1+2 ) ~ ")")



Ola.

"Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:

On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 10:10:07 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
 IN:
 (int`x + int`y) * `y

 OUT:
 (int __1,int __2) => (__1 + __2) * __2


And in case anyone wonders, I was thinking that perhaps the order 
of the parameters could be lexical, so you get the transforms:

IN:
int`y < int`x

OUT:
(int x, int y) => y<x


IN:
int`y + func( `(int`b + `x)  ) * int`x

OUT:
(int x,int y) => y + func(  (int b)=> b+x ) + x


Or if the contexts impose signatures that can be used for type 
deduction:

IN:
`y < `x

OUT:
(x,y) => y<x


IN:
`y + func( `b + `x ) * `x

OUT:
(x,y) => y + func(  (b)=> b+x ) + x

"Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?= <schuetzm gmx.net> writes:

On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 10:10:07 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
 I have spent some time thinking about how the D syntax can be 
 polished by adding sugar. I wonder if this would be possible to 
 implement in the parser:


 IN:
 (int`x + int`y) * `y

 OUT:
 (int __1,int __2) => (__1 + __2) * __2


 IN:
 callTemplate!(`mycmp`(`a,1+2))

 OUT:
 calltemplate!("mycmp(a," ~ __to_string( 1+2 ) ~ ")")

Apart from the fact that I find this harder to read than simply 
spelling it out: Backticks are already used for wysiwyg strings. 
It's almost impossible to reuse them for anything else.

"Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:

On Tuesday, 26 August 2014 at 11:32:58 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
 Apart from the fact that I find this harder to read than simply 
 spelling it out: Backticks are already used for wysiwyg 
 strings. It's almost impossible to reuse them for anything else.

Pretend I use forward-ticks  ´x+´y :-)

What is hard to read depends on what you are used to, but 
declaring symbols to "not be evaluated here" by prefixing them 
with a "tick" seems to carry the semantics better than using 
string mixins and achieve a more concise syntax?