View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
October 14, 2008
Re: Template instantiation syntax
Kyle Furlong schrieb:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> We seem to have reached a dead end on finding a significantly better
>> alternative than foo!(bar).
>>
>> All is not lost, though. Andrei is working on an emacs module that
>> will parse D code and replace foo!(bar) with foo«bar» for display only
>> when the editor is in D mode, the underlying text will still be
>> foo!(bar). (This doesn't affect D at all, only its display in Emacs.)
>>
>> Also, we're going to try using ! for single argument syntax, as in:
>>
>> foo!bar  is same as   foo!(bar)
>> foo!10   is same as   foo!(10)
>>
>> etc. 0 arguments or more than 1 argument or arguments that are more
>> than one token long will still require !( ). We'll see how that works.
>> I think it looks rather nice.
> 
> Is it just me or is foo!bar uglier than foo!(bar)? Maybe I'm just used
> to the tried and true syntax.

Seconded.
October 14, 2008
Re: Template instantiation syntax
Kyle Furlong wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> We seem to have reached a dead end on finding a significantly better 
>> alternative than foo!(bar).
>>
>> All is not lost, though. Andrei is working on an emacs module that 
>> will parse D code and replace foo!(bar) with foo«bar» for display only 
>> when the editor is in D mode, the underlying text will still be 
>> foo!(bar). (This doesn't affect D at all, only its display in Emacs.)
>>
>> Also, we're going to try using ! for single argument syntax, as in:
>>
>> foo!bar  is same as   foo!(bar)
>> foo!10   is same as   foo!(10)
>>
>> etc. 0 arguments or more than 1 argument or arguments that are more 
>> than one token long will still require !( ). We'll see how that works. 
>> I think it looks rather nice.
> 
> Is it just me or is foo!bar uglier than foo!(bar)? Maybe I'm just used 
> to the tried and true syntax.

Uglier and more ambiguous.
October 14, 2008
Re: Template instantiation syntax
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 5:48 AM, Frank Benoit
<keinfarbton@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Kyle Furlong schrieb:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>> We seem to have reached a dead end on finding a significantly better
>>> alternative than foo!(bar).
>>>
>>> All is not lost, though. Andrei is working on an emacs module that
>>> will parse D code and replace foo!(bar) with foo«bar» for display only
>>> when the editor is in D mode, the underlying text will still be
>>> foo!(bar). (This doesn't affect D at all, only its display in Emacs.)
>>>
>>> Also, we're going to try using ! for single argument syntax, as in:
>>>
>>> foo!bar  is same as   foo!(bar)
>>> foo!10   is same as   foo!(10)
>>>
>>> etc. 0 arguments or more than 1 argument or arguments that are more
>>> than one token long will still require !( ). We'll see how that works.
>>> I think it looks rather nice.
>>
>> Is it just me or is foo!bar uglier than foo!(bar)? Maybe I'm just used
>> to the tried and true syntax.
>
> Seconded.

Thirded, though it does look a bit better with a monospace font.  In
the proportional font used by gmail, it just shrinks to way to small
and hard to see.

--bb
October 16, 2008
Re: Template instantiation syntax
Sergey Gromov wrote:
> Mon, 13 Oct 2008 01:18:35 +0800,
> KennyTM~ wrote:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>> KennyTM~ wrote:
>>>> But will be compiler accept T«x» if I directly feed it into the compiler?
>>> No.
>>>
>>>> It's no good if what you see cannot be what you type.
>>> The compiler doesn't accept colored text either, but that doesn't impair 
>>> the usefulness of an editor that displays it that way.
>> Because you can't type color, but you can type « and ».
> 
> You can type runes either.  Let's use Fehu for function types and literals!

Now that's real arcana!! There really should be a programming language 
that looked magic scrolls!

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Developer, MSc. in CS/E graduate
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
October 16, 2008
Re: Template instantiation syntax
Robert Fraser wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>  I just told Walter even his code looks good now :o).
> 
> It can replace "goto" with scenes from the Looney Toons?

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
Seriously, I gave a good laugh with that one ;D

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Developer, MSc. in CS/E graduate
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
October 16, 2008
Re: Template instantiation syntax
Christopher Wright wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>> "Nick Sabalausky" <a@a.a> wrote in message 
>> news:gcqvfr$1k6i$1@digitalmars.com...
>>> One of the original guiding principles of D is that it be easy to 
>>> parse. There were a number of valid reasons for this, not just lazyness.
>>>
>>> Plus, I'm no compiler expert, but I think I rememebr hearing 
>>> somewhere that overloadng <> to be usable for both comparisons and 
>>> grouping would require non-context-free grammar. That would be a 
>>> major increase in D's parsing complexity. C++ grammer is definately 
>>> not context-free, that's why it can get away with it. Not sure about 
>>> C# or Java, but I've been under the impression those aren't 
>>> context-free either.
>>>
>>
>> I can see your point and to a point I think it is a valid concern.
>>
>> But, most users could care less about that stuff IMO. Abstraction from 
>> what a compiler does is why we use higher-level languages in the first 
>> place <g>
> 
> C++ is much more popular than D, but I haven't found an IDE for it that 
> has a significant advantage over Descent. Many users care a fair bit 
> about IDEs -- I would, if I didn't work over ssh pretty much of the time.

Actually, CDT seems to have advanced quite a lot in its versions 3 and 4 
at least in terms of semantic features (code completion, open 
declaration, open type, and even refactoring). Last time I checked it, 
it seemed quite better than VC++ 2005 (except perhaps in the area of 
debugging).

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Developer, MSc. in CS/E graduate
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D
October 18, 2008
Re: Template instantiation syntax
That's looking very nice. Esp. the boolean expressions!

- Bent
October 18, 2008
Re: Template instantiation syntax
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 7:40 AM, Bent Rasmussen
<IncredibleShrinkingSphere@gmail.com> wrote:
> That's looking very nice. Esp. the boolean expressions!

ERROR: Vote ignored for lack of context.

If you're going to go to the trouble to agree to something, you might
as well quote what it is that you're agreeing to. :-)

--bb
Next ›   Last »
6 7 8 9 10
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home