Hi

This is the monthly status for the unofficial d wish list: http://all-technology.com/eigenpolls/dwishlist/

Right now the wish list looks like this:

187  Stack tracing (#26)
184  Reflection API (#6)
125  vectorization (#10)
105  Multiple return values (tuples (#28)
92  Multiple opCast per class (#24)
86  Debug check for null reference (#52)
81  Native AMD64 codegen (#36)
76  Short syntax for new (#18)
71  unit test after compilation (#1)
71  !in (#44)
67  extra compiler values (#19)
62  Return-type overloading (#49)
55  Explicit out/inout (#38)
52  Unit test isolation  (#2)
52  Foreach on first/on last (#42)
48  Posix threads support native (#3)
45  Array masking (#11)
43  Array pushback/popback (#51)
42  better syntax for cast (#23)
42  Variadic arguments re-passing (#102)
40  Consistent struct/class sizeof (#40)
39  Explicit type initializers (#35)
38  L-Value return (#73)
35  associative arrays by index (#16)
34  unit test & code separation (#7)
34  black box unit testing (#8)
34  Named keyword arguments (#87)
33  coherent assoc. array syntax (#20)
33  Non-Static isExpression (#37)
32  Explicit module `friendship` (#43)
31  Pass value params byref (#34)
31  auto-member objects (#45)
31  struct constructor (#97)
30  Conditional syncronized (#30)
28  Unit test measurements (#9)
28  Explicit property keyword (#83)
26  Renaming ctor/dtor (#17)
25  Inline enum declaration (#76)
24  User-defined sync function (#31)
23  Small Exectables (#88)
22  if, while, true, false, int (#86)
21  proper cast operators (#21)
21  Iterators and Generators (#58)
20  Pascal like sets (#61)
20  interface to C++ (#71)
18  Built-in variant type (#56)
18  Precise names for floats (#62)
16  D library contest (#59)
16  Full lexical closures (#140)
15  No Postfix Array Declarations (#85)
15  range type (#106)
14  copy operator (#95)
14  Multi-Dimensional Allocation (#109)
13  Call log (#47)
13  Meta Information (#69)
13  modules must not rely on files (#84)
12  conv() and opConv (#66)
12  opCast overloading (#81)
12  garbage collection switch  (#96)
12  Real C bitfields (#145)
11  inout variable and return (#60)
11  imag and comp FP types. (#63)
11  Finite sets (#72)
10  Improve module architecture (#64)
10  In flight exception detection (#101)
9  Against class instance sizeof (#48)
9  inline expansion (#67)
9  function inheritance (#92)
8  Relational class/array algebra (#65)
8  Parallel Scavenging GC (#80)
8  in for arrays (#160)
8  Get rid of const (#165)
7  date/time/datetime literal (#105)
7  void Class.Method() {} syntax (#146)
7  throws keyword (#173)
6  Statically check for == null (#98)
6  static foreach(scope/unscope) (#152)
5  Declaration in function calls (#74)
5  Efficient array opCatAssign (#148)
5  in for arrays (#161)
4  array in template arguments (#91)
4  support struct&array in switch (#99)
4  named tuple (#103)
4  Explicit out/inout/lazy (#110)
4  First-class continuations (#141)
4  Implicit New (#143)
4  suffix identifiers. (#168)
3  System.Windows.Forms (#93)
3  Reallocation Keyword (#108)
3  function call over network (#111)
3  Better UTF32 Support (#113)
3  Property shortcut (#144)
3  variable template(short syntax (#149)
3  template literal (#150)
3  tuple literal and append-op (#151)
3  {Cleaner Operator Overloading} (#166)
3  Remove const (#171)
3  Remove const (#172)
3  Tango to work with D2 (#179)
2  Manage .resources files (#70)
2  Multistep return (#75)
2  constant operater overloading (#100)
2  solve interdepend static this (#107)
2  Quick For Syntax (#142)
2  invariant function (#156)
2  Custom Attributes (#159)
2  Keyword Pow Operator (#162)
2  Custom Syntax (#163)
2  C++ Member Pointers (#167)
2  Property declarator (#174)
2  Voting in bugzilla for D. (#176)
1  consistant new (#77)
1  temp alias param specialize (#112)
1  remove initializers (#147)
1  __traits (#153)
1  ext property for  basic types (#154)
1  temporary variable (#155)
1  Dynamic Conditional (#157)
1  constant member functions (#158)
1  templated constructors (#164)
1  New Switch Case Design (#170)
1  Remove SFINAE (#175)
1  Power operator (#177)
1  Enum string cast (#178)
0  Better Array Function Template (#169)

4tuu4k002@sneakemail.com Wrote:

> 105  Multiple return values (tuples (#28)
> int, int getPoint();
> int a,b;
> a,b = getPoint();

Provided we have lvalue array literals, this can fit to general array operations rules:
int[] getPoint();
int a,b;
[a,b]=getPoint();

ore-sama wrote:
> 4tuu4k002@sneakemail.com Wrote:
> 
>> 105  Multiple return values (tuples (#28)
>> int, int getPoint();
>> int a,b;
>> a,b = getPoint();
> 
> Provided we have lvalue array literals, this can fit to general array operations rules:
> int[] getPoint();
> int a,b;
> [a,b]=getPoint();

int code;
string msg;

[code, msg] = getError();

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 15:00:01 +0300, KennyTM~ <kennytm@gmail.com> wrote:

> ore-sama wrote:
>> 4tuu4k002@sneakemail.com Wrote:
>>
>>> 105  Multiple return values (tuples (#28)
>>> int, int getPoint();
>>> int a,b;
>>> a,b = getPoint();
>>  Provided we have lvalue array literals, this can fit to general array operations rules:
>> int[] getPoint();
>> int a,b;
>> [a,b]=getPoint();
>
> int code;
> string msg;
>
> [code, msg] = getError();

This is now a tuple, its type is (int,string):
(code, msg) = getError(); // more consistent, but less appealing

KennyTM~ Wrote:

> int code;
> string msg;
> 
> [code, msg] = getError();

Uh... I thought about arrays. For this we need lvalue struct literals.

Denis Koroskin wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 15:00:01 +0300, KennyTM~ <kennytm@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> ore-sama wrote:
>>> 4tuu4k002@sneakemail.com Wrote:
>>>
>>>> 105  Multiple return values (tuples (#28)
>>>> int, int getPoint();
>>>> int a,b;
>>>> a,b = getPoint();
>>>  Provided we have lvalue array literals, this can fit to general array operations rules:
>>> int[] getPoint();
>>> int a,b;
>>> [a,b]=getPoint();
>>
>> int code;
>> string msg;
>>
>> [code, msg] = getError();
> 
> This is now a tuple, its type is (int,string):
> (code, msg) = getError(); // more consistent, but less appealing

Right. It should be a tuple instead of an array for more generic variants.

I think this (x, y) = ... is just as good as [x, y] = ...

KennyTM~ wrote:
> ore-sama wrote:
>> 4tuu4k002@sneakemail.com Wrote:
>>
>>> 105  Multiple return values (tuples (#28)
>>> int, int getPoint();
>>> int a,b;
>>> a,b = getPoint();
>>
>> Provided we have lvalue array literals, this can fit to general array operations rules:
>> int[] getPoint();
>> int a,b;
>> [a,b]=getPoint();
> 
> int code;
> string msg;
> 
> [code, msg] = getError();

Tuple!(int, "code", string, "msg") getError();
auto e = getError;


Andrei

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 19:04:16 +0300, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:

> KennyTM~ wrote:
>> ore-sama wrote:
>>> 4tuu4k002@sneakemail.com Wrote:
>>>
>>>> 105  Multiple return values (tuples (#28)
>>>> int, int getPoint();
>>>> int a,b;
>>>> a,b = getPoint();
>>>
>>> Provided we have lvalue array literals, this can fit to general array operations rules:
>>> int[] getPoint();
>>> int a,b;
>>> [a,b]=getPoint();
>>  int code;
>> string msg;
>>  [code, msg] = getError();
>
> Tuple!(int, "code", string, "msg") getError();
> auto e = getError;
>
>
> Andrei

Imagine 'code' and 'msg' are already there as local variables and you want to reuse them. How should you do this?

Denis Koroskin wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 19:04:16 +0300, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:
> 
>> KennyTM~ wrote:
>>> ore-sama wrote:
>>>> 4tuu4k002@sneakemail.com Wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 105  Multiple return values (tuples (#28)
>>>>> int, int getPoint();
>>>>> int a,b;
>>>>> a,b = getPoint();
>>>>
>>>> Provided we have lvalue array literals, this can fit to general array operations rules:
>>>> int[] getPoint();
>>>> int a,b;
>>>> [a,b]=getPoint();
>>>  int code;
>>> string msg;
>>>  [code, msg] = getError();
>>
>> Tuple!(int, "code", string, "msg") getError();
>> auto e = getError;
>>
>>
>> Andrei
> 
> Imagine 'code' and 'msg' are already there as local variables and you want to reuse them. How should you do this?

I've been thinking of defining a simple function that binds to variable addresses and allows assignment from a tuple, in which case the code would be:

group(&code, &msg) = getError;

In "the future" we'll have variadic ref arguments, in which case the "&"s can be dropped:

group(code, msg) = getError;

Also in "the future" variable definitions will be expressions, in which case the code to define and assign code and msg becomes:

group(int code, string msg) = getError;


Andrei

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 19:33:01 +0300, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:

> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 19:04:16 +0300, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:
>>
>>> KennyTM~ wrote:
>>>> ore-sama wrote:
>>>>> 4tuu4k002@sneakemail.com Wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 105  Multiple return values (tuples (#28)
>>>>>> int, int getPoint();
>>>>>> int a,b;
>>>>>> a,b = getPoint();
>>>>>
>>>>> Provided we have lvalue array literals, this can fit to general array operations rules:
>>>>> int[] getPoint();
>>>>> int a,b;
>>>>> [a,b]=getPoint();
>>>>  int code;
>>>> string msg;
>>>>  [code, msg] = getError();
>>>
>>> Tuple!(int, "code", string, "msg") getError();
>>> auto e = getError;
>>>
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>  Imagine 'code' and 'msg' are already there as local variables and you want to reuse them. How should you do this?
>
> I've been thinking of defining a simple function that binds to variable addresses and allows assignment from a tuple, in which case the code would be:
>
> group(&code, &msg) = getError;
>
> In "the future" we'll have variadic ref arguments, in which case the "&"s can be dropped:
>
> group(code, msg) = getError;
>
> Also in "the future" variable definitions will be expressions, in which case the code to define and assign code and msg becomes:
>
> group(int code, string msg) = getError;
>
>
> Andrei

Hmmm, this is almost as nice (inspired by jQuery):

$(code, msg) = getError(); // :)