Ben Cohen wrote:

> How about  using 2 dots instead of one?
> 
>    int i = X..size;

Or how about, hmmmm .... hmmmm, .. brackets!

int i = X.size();

- sometimes we're spinning in a circle, and don't even notice it's round.

Axel Kittenberger wrote:

> Ben Cohen wrote:
>
> > How about  using 2 dots instead of one?
> >
> >    int i = X..size;
>
> Or how about, hmmmm .... hmmmm, .. brackets!
>
> int i = X.size();
>
> - sometimes we're spinning in a circle, and don't even notice it's round.

Now we run into problems with properties if X is a class and size() is a
gettor for that class... :(

Not an easy problem to solve, it seems.

I kind of like the
   ..
syntax myself.

I've been thinking of the ::, sort of like in C++ it means "use the global version".

    x = ::foo;        // use global foo

Russ Lewis wrote in message <3B9D14D3.D0491D6F@deming-os.org>...
>Axel Kittenberger wrote:
>
>> Ben Cohen wrote:
>>
>> > How about  using 2 dots instead of one?
>> >
>> >    int i = X..size;
>>
>> Or how about, hmmmm .... hmmmm, .. brackets!
>>
>> int i = X.size();
>>
>> - sometimes we're spinning in a circle, and don't even notice it's round.
>
>Now we run into problems with properties if X is a class and size() is a
>gettor for that class... :(
>
>Not an easy problem to solve, it seems.
>
>I kind of like the
>   ..
>syntax myself.
>
>

Russ Lewis wrote:
> 
> Axel Kittenberger wrote:
> 
> > Ben Cohen wrote:
> >
> > > How about  using 2 dots instead of one?
> > >
> > >    int i = X..size;
> >
> > Or how about, hmmmm .... hmmmm, .. brackets!
> >
> > int i = X.size();
> >
> > - sometimes we're spinning in a circle, and don't even notice it's round.
> 
> Now we run into problems with properties if X is a class and size() is a
> gettor for that class... :(
> 
> Not an easy problem to solve, it seems.

	Just don't make classes with methods that have the same name as
properties.  No ambiguity there.  The problem was with struct that were
originally designed in C.  Either our name could not match the C API or
would collide with D properties.  C didn't have class or member
functions and we aren't even binary compatible with C++.
	It's still sub-optimal, but it fixes the serious problem.


> I kind of like the
>    ..
> syntax myself.

	char[5] a ="01234";
	int b = 0;
	int size = 5;
	a[b..size];  // What do ya think happens?  First 4 or first 5?

Dan

In article <3B9D8704.50B5A32@b.c>, "a" <a@b.c> wrote:

>> I kind of like the
>>    ..
>> syntax myself.
> 
> 	char[5] a ="01234";
> 	int b = 0;
> 	int size = 5;
> 	a[b..size];  // What do ya think happens?  First 4 or first 5?
> 
> Dan

Yes, that's the main problem with this syntax, namely that it clashes with range notation.  But there is no particular reason why we have to use two dots for ranges (other than it's what Pascal uses).

We could use *three* dots for ranges, but that would get confusing:

a[b..size];

vs.

a[b...size];

I was going to suggest using two minuses but it might be problematic, at least for programmers if not the compiler:

a[b--size];

I think Python uses colons for ranges, which may work better (unless you'd prefer them for properties):

a[b:size];

In article <9njv6d$jp9$1@digitaldaemon.com>, "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> I've been thinking of the ::, sort of like in C++ it means "use the global version".
> 
>     x = ::foo;        // use global foo
> 

Does this clash with use of : for properties?

a wrote:
> 
> Russ Lewis (maybe?) wrote:
> > I kind of like the
> >    ..
> > syntax myself.
> 
>         char[5] a ="01234";
>         int b = 0;
>         int size = 5;
>         a[b..size];  // What do ya think happens?  First 4 or first 5?

line 3, error, reserved word used as identifier. :)

-Russell B

Ben Cohen wrote in message <9nkkrl$110k$1@digitaldaemon.com>...
>In article <9njv6d$jp9$1@digitaldaemon.com>, "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
>> I've been thinking of the ::, sort of like in C++ it means "use the global version".
>>
>>     x = ::foo;        // use global foo
>Does this clash with use of : for properties?

No, : is used for labels.

In article <9nt7au$2ohh$1@digitaldaemon.com>, "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> Ben Cohen wrote in message <9nkkrl$110k$1@digitaldaemon.com>...
>>In article <9njv6d$jp9$1@digitaldaemon.com>, "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I've been thinking of the ::, sort of like in C++ it means "use the global version".
>>>
>>>     x = ::foo;        // use global foo
>>Does this clash with use of : for properties?
> 
> No, : is used for labels.

Sorry, I should have said "would this clash..."

Ben Cohen wrote in message <9nt8jh$2p5h$1@digitaldaemon.com>...
>In article <9nt7au$2ohh$1@digitaldaemon.com>, "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
>> Ben Cohen wrote in message <9nkkrl$110k$1@digitaldaemon.com>...
>>>In article <9njv6d$jp9$1@digitaldaemon.com>, "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've been thinking of the ::, sort of like in C++ it means "use the global version".
>>>>
>>>>     x = ::foo;        // use global foo
>>>Does this clash with use of : for properties?
>>
>> No, : is used for labels.
>
>Sorry, I should have said "would this clash..."

No, I don't think it would clash. -Walter