December 01, 2007 Re: Idea for getting rid of "static" on methods | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to BCS | BCS wrote:
> Matti Niemenmaa wrote:
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>>> Now you're on to something! Just tweak that last one slightly:
>>>
>>> (this is !in function) int my_method() {...}
>>>
>>> Perfect!
>>
>>
>> Nah, this one's perfect:
>>
>> (this function is !in this class) int my_method() {...}
>>
>
> Free kudos* to the first person to get a haiku of key words to compile. Anyone want to go for a limerick?
>
>
> * kudos will consist of "well done ____" being posted where ____ is replaced with the name of the person awarded said kudos.
Problem is, most keywords don't work too close to each other. If you allow arbitrary identifiers, too easy.
|
December 01, 2007 Re: Idea for getting rid of "static" on methods | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Matti Niemenmaa | Matti Niemenmaa, el 30 de noviembre a las 21:11 me escribiste: > Bill Baxter wrote: > > Now you're on to something! Just tweak that last one slightly: > > > > (this is !in function) int my_method() {...} > > > > Perfect! > > Nah, this one's perfect: > > (this function is !in this class) int my_method() {...} The obvious missing one is: > (class function with out this) int my_method() {...} -- Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Oiganmen ñatos de corazón, es más posible que un potus florezca en primavera a que un ángel pase con una remera. -- Peperino Pómoro |
December 01, 2007 Re: Idea for getting rid of "static" on methods | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to BCS | BCS wrote: > Free kudos* to the first person to get a haiku of key words to compile. protected static this() { if (new short) assert (is( typeof(typeid(int)))); } > Anyone want to go for a limerick? static assert (is(typeof(new short))); static this() { if (new short is new short) volatile if (true) try { debug null; do {} while (false); } catch { return new ushort;}} Both compile with 1.024. With 2.0 one could probably use the const stuff to good effect. -- E-mail address: matti.niemenmaa+news, domain is iki (DOT) fi |
December 02, 2007 Re: Idea for getting rid of "static" on methods | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Matti Niemenmaa | Reply to Matti,
> BCS wrote:
>
>> Free kudos* to the first person to get a haiku of key words to
>> compile.
>>
> protected static
> this() { if (new short) assert (is(
> typeof(typeid(int)))); }
>> Anyone want to go for a limerick?
>>
> static assert (is(typeof(new short)));
> static this() { if (new short is new short)
> volatile if (true)
> try { debug null; do {}
> while (false); } catch { return new ushort;}}
> Both compile with 1.024. With 2.0 one could probably use the const
> stuff to good effect.
>
well done Matti!!!
That is cool.
|
December 03, 2007 Re: Idea for getting rid of "static" on methods | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Matti Niemenmaa Attachments: | Matti Niemenmaa schrieb:
> BCS wrote:
>> Free kudos* to the first person to get a haiku of key words to compile.
>
> protected static
> this() { if (new short) assert (is(
> typeof(typeid(int)))); }
>
>> Anyone want to go for a limerick?
>
> static assert (is(typeof(new short)));
> static this() { if (new short is new short)
> volatile if (true)
> try { debug null; do {}
> while (false); } catch { return new ushort;}}
>
> Both compile with 1.024. With 2.0 one could probably use the const stuff to good effect.
>
OMG.
Well done Matti.
|
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation