Thread overview | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
March 03, 2005 in, out, and inout parameters | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Have you considered the following perl-inspired syntax for function calls: ( d, e ) = foo( a, b, c ); Where a,b,c are in parameters and d, e are out parameters? Inout parameters would not be needed because you could just write: ( b, c ) = foo( a, b ); This effectively makes b inout. This is effectively returning a struct from the function, but saves needing a separate declaration. This style of syntax makes it clear which functions are in and out but putting the out parameters on the other side of the assignment opperator. |
March 03, 2005 Re: in, out, and inout parameters | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Matthew Gordon | It's been suggested. Many like it. |
March 03, 2005 Re: in, out, and inout parameters | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter | "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:d05nki$1ads$2@digitaldaemon.com... > It's been suggested. Many like it. > Heheh, I take it that means you don't? |
March 03, 2005 Re: in, out, and inout parameters | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Nick Sabalausky | "Nick Sabalausky" <z@a.a> wrote in message news:d05um4$1gcn$1@digitaldaemon.com... > "Walter" <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:d05nki$1ads$2@digitaldaemon.com... > > It's been suggested. Many like it. > > > > Heheh, I take it that means you don't? I'm not too comfortable with it <g>. |
March 03, 2005 Re: in, out, and inout parameters | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Walter | Hi..
>> Heheh, I take it that means you don't?
> I'm not too comfortable with it <g>.
From a compiler programmer point-of-view? (I mean, would it parse terribly?)
L.
|
March 10, 2005 Re: in, out, and inout parameters | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Lionello Lunesu | "Lionello Lunesu" <lio@lunesu.removethis.com> wrote in message news:d06ho5$255n$1@digitaldaemon.com... > Hi.. > > >> Heheh, I take it that means you don't? > > I'm not too comfortable with it <g>. > > From a compiler programmer point-of-view? (I mean, would it parse terribly?) (exp, exp) already has a meaning in D, and this would change that in a context, dependent way. Not impossible, but kinda kludgy. I also just can't escape a wince looking at it. It just doesn't look right. |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation