• =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Christian_K=F6stlin?= <christian.koestlin gmail.com> Apr 30 2012
• "Jesse Phillips" <Jessekphillips+D gmail.com> Apr 30 2012
• "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> Apr 30 2012
• =?UTF-8?B?Q2hyaXN0aWFuIEvDtnN0bGlu?= <christian.koestlin gmail.com> Apr 30 2012
• "bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> Apr 30 2012
• =?UTF-8?B?Q2hyaXN0aWFuIEvDtnN0bGlu?= <christian.koestlin gmail.com> May 02 2012
• Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> Apr 30 2012

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Christian_K=F6stlin?= <christian.koestlin gmail.com> writes:

reduce!((int a, int b){return a+b;})(iota(100))
reduce!("a+b")(iota(100))

thanks in advance

christian koestlin

"Jesse Phillips" <Jessekphillips+D gmail.com> writes:

On Monday, 30 April 2012 at 15:19:02 UTC, Christian Köstlin 
wrote:
 reduce!((int a, int b){return a+b;})(iota(100))
 reduce!("a+b")(iota(100))

 thanks in advance

 christian koestlin


The answer to your question should be no. The second is 
transformed into a delegate like the first during compilation.

Note that there is also C# like lambdas

(a, b) => a+b

"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg gmx.com> writes:

On Monday, April 30, 2012 17:19:00 Christian Köstlin wrote:
 reduce!((int a, int b){return a+b;})(iota(100))
 reduce!("a+b")(iota(100))
 
 thanks in advance


The first one directly creates a lambda, whereas the second one uses a string 
mixin with std.function.binaryFunc to create a lambda. The lambda generated 
for the second one will be the same as the one given in the first. They're just 
different ways to do the same thing.

- Jonathan M Davis

=?UTF-8?B?Q2hyaXN0aWFuIEvDtnN0bGlu?= <christian.koestlin gmail.com> writes:

On 04/30/2012 07:04 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
 On Monday, April 30, 2012 17:19:00 Christian Köstlin wrote:
 reduce!((int a, int b){return a+b;})(iota(100))
 reduce!("a+b")(iota(100))

 thanks in advance


 The first one directly creates a lambda, whereas the second one uses a string
 mixin with std.function.binaryFunc to create a lambda. The lambda generated
 for the second one will be the same as the one given in the first. They're just
 different ways to do the same thing.

 - Jonathan M Davis


https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos/blob/master/std/algorithm.d 
...

regards

christian koestlin

"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

Christian Köstlin:

 reduce!((int a, int b){return a+b;})(iota(100))
 reduce!("a+b")(iota(100))


Today the syntaxes I prefer are:

iota(100).reduce!q{a + b}()

iota(100).reduce!((a, b) => a + b)()

But hopefully in some we'll have an efficient sum() function too 
in Phobos:

iota(100).sum()

Bye,
bearophile

=?UTF-8?B?Q2hyaXN0aWFuIEvDtnN0bGlu?= <christian.koestlin gmail.com> writes:

On 04/30/2012 11:03 PM, bearophile wrote:
 Christian Köstlin:

 reduce!((int a, int b){return a+b;})(iota(100))
 reduce!("a+b")(iota(100))


 Today the syntaxes I prefer are:

 iota(100).reduce!q{a + b}()

 iota(100).reduce!((a, b) => a + b)()

 But hopefully in some we'll have an efficient sum() function too in Phobos:

 iota(100).sum()

 Bye,
 bearophile


i always forget about this nice d feature :)

regards

christian

Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:

On 04/30/2012 05:19 PM, Christian Köstlin wrote:
 reduce!((int a, int b){return a+b;})(iota(100))
 reduce!("a+b")(iota(100))

 thanks in advance

 christian koestlin


In this case there is not. But if external symbols are to be referred to 
inside the lambda, then the second notation cannot be used.