Menu
Search

Forums

Forum Index

January 25, 2013
Gravatar of Peter AlexanderPosted by Peter AlexanderReply
Peter Alexander
Gravatar of Peter Alexander


Reply
Would this be possible without breaking the grammar?

bool isPalindrome = getRange().(r => equal(r, retro(r)));


I find this way of writing that expression more natural and efficient than the alternatives:

auto r = getRange();
bool isPalindrome = equal(r, retro(r));

or

bool isPalindrome = (r => equal(r, retro(r)))(getRange());
January 25, 2013
Gravatar of Timon GehrPosted by Timon Gehr
in reply to Peter Alexander		Reply
Timon Gehr
Gravatar of Timon Gehr
Posted in reply to Peter Alexander


Reply
On 01/25/2013 10:37 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:
> Would this be possible without breaking the grammar?
>
> bool isPalindrome = getRange().(r => equal(r, retro(r)));
>

Yes.

>
> I find this way of writing that expression more natural and efficient
> than the alternatives:
>
> auto r = getRange();
> bool isPalindrome = equal(r, retro(r));
>
> or
>
> bool isPalindrome = (r => equal(r, retro(r)))(getRange());

bool isPalindrome = getRange().ap!(r => equal(r, retro(r)));

where

auto ap(alias a,T...)(T b)=>a(b);