View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
October 20, 2006
Re: Prettier iterator implementations in D?
We could also make the syntax cleaner with type inference. Consider your 

Bill Baxter wrote:
> This code in D:
>     int opApply(int delegate(inout uint) dg)
>     {   int result = 0;
>     for (int i = 0; i < array.length; i++)
>     {
>         result = dg(array[i]);
>         if (result)
>         break;
>     }
>     return result;
>     }

The compiler knows the type of array[i], so it can infer what the type 
of the parameter is. This inference should never be wrong, as long as 
the delegate is called at least once.

The return type can't be inferred, however, so we would combine your 
syntax with type inference to get some hybrid like this:

  int opApply(int (auto) dg)

To handle inout parameters, you simply need inout to be allowed at the 

  result = dg(inout array[i]);

C# requires (!) this, and several people have requested that this be 
optional in D -- why shouldn't it?

The only problem I can see with this is that it moves the type of the 
delegate out of the function prototype and into the function. Never mind 
-- many people from functional languages with Hindley-Milner type 
inference have been doing that for years and not had problems with it; 
the saving is more than the gain.
October 21, 2006
Re: Prettier iterator implementations in D?
On Fri, 2006-10-20 at 16:50 +0900, Bill Baxter wrote:
> Alexander Panek wrote:
> > I know Ruby, and it's loops are very cool, indeed. But this is D, and as
> > a full blown *system and application programming language*, you can't
> > compare it to Ruby. 
> What is D if not "the speed of C++ with the ease of Ruby"?

D has a C like syntax, Ruby does definitely not. :)

> > I don't think syntactic sugar should be added too
> > hasty. 
> I agree.  That's why plenty of discussion is needed.  So start poking holes!
> > Apart from that I kinda like the delegate / function ptr syntax
> > as it is.
> And you could still use it as is if you like, because the suggestion is 
> to make 'delegate' optional, not mandate it's removal.

Wouldn't it be better to solve such things with a little library (as you
suggested)? I do like the constructs of higher level languages that have
been added to D, but the meaning of each should be recognizable on the
first sight. So when you look at a big fat nested arguments list you'd
use your syntax to shorten it - but would it be readable for others?

What D has made possible [imho] is to make code more readable. You have
explicitly named or styled syntax sugar, that is mostly not used as is
in other languages, and thus can't really be misread through confusion.
I wouldn't want this to be changed, actually.

> About whether sugar is warranted here:  it seems Walter sees this 
> delegate mechanism as becoming *the* primary technique for iteration in 
> D.  That being the case, it should be as easy to read and write as 
> possible.   Being easier to use than C++ iterators is the primary reason 
> he gives for liking it, in fact.  So let's figure out how to make 
> absolutely as simple as possible.

alias! :P

> Right now, say you want to write a generic array iterator factory 
> function 'traverser', which you do because it allows you to do this:
>      foreach(int i; iarray.traverser()) {
>        ...
>      }
> to iterate in some custom way over the elements of any array.
> Here is the signature for that now (returns a delegate that takes a 
> delegate parameter):
>    int delegate(int delegate(inout typeof(ArrayT[0])))
>       traverser(ArrayT)(inout ArrayT array)
>    {
>    }
>    ...
> The int delegate(int delegate ...) business is just too verbose to grok 
> easily.   If I change the ints to voids and drop the 'delegate':
> (( inout typeof(ArrayT[0]) )) reversed(ArrayT)(inout ArrayT array)
> I think that's easier to look at if for no other reason than being 
> shorter.  But I'll admit it probably is more mind boggling at first. 
> But it's not a stretch to say most everybody could get used to reading
>    (int) somefunc() {...}
> as a function that returns a void-returning, int-taking delegate.  Just 
> think of the (int) as a lone argument list ["takes an int"] and it's 
> pretty clear.
> And in that light it's not hard to see the extra sets of parens (( )) 
> mean 'a void returning delegate that takes a void returning delegate'. 
> At some point (( type )) just becomes second nature as the basic return 
> signature for an iterator factory.  It's easy to see once you know to 
> look for it, because its so short and (( )) stands out if spaced properly.
> Another alternative is standard aliases for those complicated types:
> template Types(ArgT) {
>      static if( is (ArgT[0]) ) {
> 	alias typeof(ArgT[0]) elem_t;
>      }
>      else static if( is(ArgT.elem_t) ) {
> 	alias ArgT.elem_t elem_t;
>      }
>      else {
>          alias ArgT elem_t;
>      }
>      alias int delegate(int delegate(inout elem_t)) iter_t;
>      // this works for anything that is either array-like or has an
>      // elem_t alias.
> }
> Then you can use those aliases like:
>    Types!(ArrayT).iter_t  reversed(ArrayT)(inout ArrayT array)
>    { ... }
> that still looks kinda klunky :-/, but maybe better.  At least it's 
> short enough to fit on one line.  But it just replaces having to know 
> what (( )) means with having to know what Types!().iter_t means.  So I'm 
> not sure it's really better.

I doesn't look klunky to me, actually. You can still use standard
aliases to 'beautify' it, for example if you make a library of such

> Well at least it is something that works now!
> --bb

Yes :)

Next ›   Last »
1 2
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home