Is this possible/should it compile?

If not, should I make an enhancement request for it? It's been something that would've been useful in a ton of situations for me...

void process(R)(R items, size_t maxCount = items.length)
{
}

On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 00:16:52 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
> Is this possible/should it compile?
>
> If not, should I make an enhancement request for it? It's been something that would've been useful in a ton of situations for me...
>
> void process(R)(R items, size_t maxCount = items.length)
> {
> }

Have you tried it?

I bet this isn't possible currently, but do open an enhancement request if it isn't. It's going to be a bit tricky to implement, but I like it.

On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 01:06:31 UTC, Matt Peterson wrote:
> On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 00:16:52 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
>> Is this possible/should it compile?
>>
>> If not, should I make an enhancement request for it? It's been something that would've been useful in a ton of situations for me...
>>
>> void process(R)(R items, size_t maxCount = items.length)
>> {
>> }
>
> Have you tried it?
>
> I bet this isn't possible currently, but do open an enhancement request if it isn't. It's going to be a bit tricky to implement, but I like it.

Well I mean of course I tried it (and it didn't work), but I was just making sure I wasn't doing something wrong and that it wasn't recently added or something.

Ok I'll make a request for it.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=8075

On Wed, 09 May 2012 20:16:51 -0400, Mehrdad <wfunction@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Is this possible/should it compile?
>
> If not, should I make an enhancement request for it? It's been something that would've been useful in a ton of situations for me...
>
> void process(R)(R items, size_t maxCount = items.length)
> {
> }

I *love* this idea.

Although, what happens if the expression for items is costly?  We have to make sure if you do:

process(someExpensiveCalculation());

it doesn't turn into:

process(someExpensiveCalculation(), someExpensiveCalculation().length);

-Steve

On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 11:54:42 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> I *love* this idea.

:D

> Although, what happens if the expression for items is costly?  We have to make sure if you do:
>
> process(someExpensiveCalculation());
>
> it doesn't turn into:
>
> process(someExpensiveCalculation(), someExpensiveCalculation().length);

It should be evaluated once anyway, since it might have side effects.

Am 10.05.2012 02:16, schrieb Mehrdad:
> Is this possible/should it compile?
>
> If not, should I make an enhancement request for it? It's been something
> that would've been useful in a ton of situations for me...
>
> void process(R)(R items, size_t maxCount = items.length)
> {
> }

Solution:
void process(R)(R items) {
	process(items, items.length);
}

void process(R)(R items, int maxCount);

Is such a miminal syntactic sugar addition worth it?

On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 14:11:32 UTC, Mafi wrote:
> Am 10.05.2012 02:16, schrieb Mehrdad:
>> Is this possible/should it compile?
>>
>> If not, should I make an enhancement request for it? It's been something
>> that would've been useful in a ton of situations for me...
>>
>> void process(R)(R items, size_t maxCount = items.length)
>> {
>> }
>
> Solution:
> void process(R)(R items) {
> 	process(items, items.length);
> }
>
> void process(R)(R items, int maxCount);
>
> Is such a miminal syntactic sugar addition worth it?

Yes! That's, like, 80 fewer characters... And it doesn't scale with multiple optional arguments..

On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 14:33:32 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
> On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 14:11:32 UTC, Mafi wrote:
>> Am 10.05.2012 02:16, schrieb Mehrdad:
>>> Is this possible/should it compile?
>>>
>>> If not, should I make an enhancement request for it? It's been something
>>> that would've been useful in a ton of situations for me...
>>>
>>> 
> Yes! That's, like, 80 fewer characters... And it doesn't scale with multiple optional arguments..

er, more* characters

On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 14:33:32 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
> On Thursday, 10 May 2012 at 14:11:32 UTC, Mafi wrote:
>> Am 10.05.2012 02:16, schrieb Mehrdad:
>>> Is this possible/should it compile?
>>>
>>> If not, should I make an enhancement request for it? It's been something
>>> that would've been useful in a ton of situations for me...
>>>
>>> 
> Yes! That's, like, 80 fewer characters... And it doesn't scale with multiple optional arguments..

er, more* characters