• Baz (11/13) Apr 12 2015 function parameters declarations don't:
• Idan Arye (4/17) Apr 12 2015 void foo(int a, b);
• ketmar (3/4) Apr 12 2015 yes: nameless args. i would like to see 'em burned with napalm, but it=2...

"Baz" <bb.temp gmx.com> writes:

Hi,
while variable declarations work in list:

 uint a,b,c;

function parameters declarations don't:

 void foo(uint a,b,c);

Because of this, function declarations are sometimes super-wide.
(despite of the fact that: 
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alanperlis177279.html)

In the previous example, we could imagine that once a type 
defined, it'd valid until a new one appears (until a 
"redefinition" / an "override").

Is there anything in the grammar that prevents this syntax ?

Thx.

"Idan Arye" <GenericNPC gmail.com> writes:

On Sunday, 12 April 2015 at 11:49:19 UTC, Baz wrote:
 Hi,
 while variable declarations work in list:

 uint a,b,c;

 function parameters declarations don't:

 void foo(uint a,b,c);

 Because of this, function declarations are sometimes super-wide.
 (despite of the fact that: 
 http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alanperlis177279.html)

 In the previous example, we could imagine that once a type 
 defined, it'd valid until a new one appears (until a 
 "redefinition" / an "override").

 Is there anything in the grammar that prevents this syntax ?

 Thx.


void foo(int a, b);


Is `b` a second int argument, or is there a user defined type 
named `b` and the second argument is nameless of type `b`?

ketmar <ketmar ketmar.no-ip.org> writes:

On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 11:49:18 +0000, Baz wrote:

 Is there anything in the grammar that prevents this syntax ?

yes: nameless args. i would like to see 'em burned with napalm, but it=20
seems to be too late to do that...=