www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - DIP 1043---Shortened Method Syntax---Accepted

reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
DIP 1043, "Shortened Method Syntax", has been accepted.

The fact that the feature was already implemented behind a 
preview switch carried weight with Atila. He noted that, if not 
for that, he wasn't sure where he would stand on adding the 
feature, but he could see no reason to reject it now.

Walter accepted with a suggested (not a required) enhancement:

 It could be even shorter. For functions with no arguments, the 
 () could be
omitted, because the => token will still make it unambiguous.
For example:

     T front() => from;

becomes:

     T front => from;
As DIP author, Max decided against this. He said it's not a bad idea, but it's then "inconsistent with other the other syntaxes". If there is a demand for this, it would be easy to add later, but he felt it's better to keep things simple for now by going with the current implementation as is.
Sep 21
next sibling parent reply Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 10:39:27 UTC, Mike Parker 
wrote:
 DIP 1043, "Shortened Method Syntax", has been accepted.
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1043.md
Sep 21
parent reply Meta <jared771 gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 10:40:42 UTC, Mike Parker 
wrote:
 On Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 10:39:27 UTC, Mike Parker 
 wrote:
 DIP 1043, "Shortened Method Syntax", has been accepted.
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1043.md
That's awesome! Congrats to Max.
Sep 21
parent Mike Parker <aldacron gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 13:56:35 UTC, Meta wrote:
 On Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 10:40:42 UTC, Mike Parker 
 wrote:
 On Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 10:39:27 UTC, Mike Parker 
 wrote:
 DIP 1043, "Shortened Method Syntax", has been accepted.
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1043.md
That's awesome! Congrats to Max.
And to Adam. I believe it's his implementation behind the preview switch.
Sep 21
prev sibling next sibling parent Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:
On 21.09.22 12:39, Mike Parker wrote:
 DIP 1043, "Shortened Method Syntax", has been accepted.
 
 The fact that the feature was already implemented behind a preview 
 switch carried weight with Atila. He noted that, if not for that, he 
 wasn't sure where he would stand on adding the feature, but he could see 
 no reason to reject it now.
 
 Walter accepted with a suggested (not a required) enhancement:
 
 It could be even shorter. For functions with no arguments, the () 
 could be
omitted, because the => token will still make it unambiguous.
 For example:

     T front() => from;

 becomes:

     T front => from;
As DIP author, Max decided against this. He said it's not a bad idea, but it's then "inconsistent with other the other syntaxes". If there is a demand for this, it would be easy to add later, but he felt it's better to keep things simple for now by going with the current implementation as is.
🎉 Great news! :)
Sep 21
prev sibling next sibling parent Markus <m ark.us.tld> writes:
On Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 10:39:27 UTC, Mike Parker 
wrote:
For example:

     T front() => from;

becomes:

     T front => from;
I kind of agree with Max's contention, but nonetheless, I quite like it.
Sep 21
prev sibling next sibling parent ag0aep6g <anonymous example.com> writes:
On 21.09.22 12:39, Mike Parker wrote:
 The fact that the feature was already implemented behind a preview 
 switch carried weight with Atila. He noted that, if not for that, he 
 wasn't sure where he would stand on adding the feature, but he could see 
 no reason to reject it now.
The benevolent way to read that is that Atila liked that he could easily try out the new feature and judge it more fairly because of that. The mean way to read it is that Atila employs some circular reasoning: Accept the preview implementation, deferring to the DIP process to catch a bad proposal. Accept the DIP, referring to the preview implementation as justification.
Sep 21
prev sibling parent Doigt <labog outlook.com> writes:
On Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 10:39:27 UTC, Mike Parker 
wrote:
For example:

     T front() => from;

becomes:

     T front => from;
As DIP author, Max decided against this. He said it's not a bad idea, but it's then "inconsistent with other the other syntaxes". If there is a demand for this, it would be easy to add later, but he felt it's better to keep things simple for now by going with the current implementation as is.
It's one of those things that aren't necessary, but bring some small "quality of life" kind of change to the code we write. At least in my opinion, I quite like it, the same way I like how I can call a parameter-less function without parentheses.
Sep 21