Feature suggestion. It would be nice if D could determine type of constant automatically, so we could write:

    const i = 10, d = 123.456, s = "Hello, world!"

Would be great...

"Pavel Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> wrote in message news:a003uc$1m0e$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Feature suggestion. It would be nice if D could determine type of constant automatically, so we could write:
>
>     const i = 10, d = 123.456, s = "Hello, world!"
>
> Would be great...

Actually, with string literals, the compiler does do that. But it has resulted in a lot of problems. It's much better to just say what type it is.

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:a00e4m$1thm$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> Actually, with string literals, the compiler does do that. But it has

The following program doesn't compile:

    const i = 666;
    const s = "hello, world!";

> resulted in a lot of problems. It's much better to just say what type it
is.

Problems?

"Pavel Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> wrote in message news:a01g86$2ma7$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:a00e4m$1thm$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> > Actually, with string literals, the compiler does do that. But it has
>
> The following program doesn't compile:
>
>     const i = 666;
>     const s = "hello, world!";

Yes, it won't, because while "hello, world" starts out typeless, the declaration for s needs a type.

> > resulted in a lot of problems. It's much better to just say what type it
> is.
>
> Problems?

One problem, for example, is "a" a char, char[1], wchar, wchar[1]? This causes trouble with overloading.

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:a02ebb$ajb$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> Yes, it won't, because while "hello, world" starts out typeless, the declaration for s needs a type.

That was exactly my proposal - make the type in const declarations unnecessary...

> One problem, for example, is "a" a char, char[1], wchar, wchar[1]? This causes trouble with overloading.

Whatever it suites - like a literal "a" can be a char or a char[1] depending on context. Ambiguities with overloading are easily resolved using cast(). Or, typed consts could be used in these cases.

Lazy, lazy, lazy!!!

Sean

"Pavel Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> wrote in message news:a003uc$1m0e$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Feature suggestion. It would be nice if D could determine type of constant automatically, so we could write:
>
>     const i = 10, d = 123.456, s = "Hello, world!"
>
> Would be great...

"Pavel Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> wrote in message news:a02ikb$dlr$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:a02ebb$ajb$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Yes, it won't, because while "hello, world" starts out typeless, the declaration for s needs a type.
> That was exactly my proposal - make the type in const declarations unnecessary...
> > One problem, for example, is "a" a char, char[1], wchar, wchar[1]? This causes trouble with overloading.
> Whatever it suites - like a literal "a" can be a char or a char[1] depending on context. Ambiguities with overloading are easily resolved using cast(). Or, typed consts could be used in these cases.

The language can handle a few ambiguities requiring casting like string literals. Doing it in general, like for variables, will fill the code up with ugly casting.