land = logical and
lor = logical or
leq = logical equal

& = binary and
|  = binary or
= = binary equal

>>  = logical shift right
<< = logical shift left
o> = Roll Right
o< = Roll Left

do
   ch = fgetc(fp)
   if (ch != EOF land ch !=  EOL) then exit
  ...
loop

> I don't agree with you one this. Consider this C/C++ example:
>
>     while ( ch=fgetc(fp), ch!=EOF && ch!='\n' ) {
>         ...
>     }
>
> without the assignment it might become:
>
>     for (;;) {
>         ch = fgetc(fp);
>         if (ch==EOF || ch=='\n') {
>             break;
>         }
>         ...
>     }
>
> and the condition is moved into the loop, which I prefer to avoid if there is a simple solution to it.
>
> The for-construction above isn't valid D code according to the specs, because the increment cannot be omitted in D. Anyway, I prefer for(;;)
over
> while(true) as the latter might lead to warnings about constant
conditionals
> (such warnings are often very useful). For this reason I would like to see some construction that allows an "indefinite" loop without constant expressions. It might be for(;;), but a "forever" loop construction would please me just as much.
>
> Regards,
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

C syntax is a fine model to follow if you wish to continually repeat the same perpetually exposed errors.

I recommend avoiding errors.

Use ";" optionally.  EOL = ";" unless prefixed with a line continuation token.

Pavel Minayev <evilone@omen.ru> wrote in message news:a3c1ts$2hln$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> "Keith Nash" <k.j.nash@usa.net> wrote in message news:a39e2f$2gk9$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> We C guys have all got so used to it, I don't think it's a good idea to drop this syntax...

"D" <s_nudds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a3lf84$pao$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> Semicolons aren't redundant in C/C++ whitespace and <EOL> are ignored.  As
a
> result semicolons are considered <EOL>.  There is no significant problems caused by considering the real <EOL> to be equivalent to a semicolon with the exception that you lose the ability to spread single statments over multiple lines.  To that end, you have to define another symbol as a line continuation symbol.  When this symbol is encountered, the next true <EOL> is ignored.
>
> It's as simple as that.

Not really. Some languages (Euphoria, Lua - those I know well) don't use statement delimiters at all. You can write:

    if a = 1 then a += 1 end

    -- or --

    if a = 1 then
        a += 1
    end

    -- or even --

    if a
    = 1 then a
    += 1 end

Still, I prefer to have semicolons. They make life easier when reading code, and help compiler to parse some complicated cases.

"D" <s_nudds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a3lfdg$php$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> With respect to boolean types, it is essential that the language have predefined constants for true and false.

D has both. true is 0, false is 1. Both are of type bit.

"D" <s_nudds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a3lgkl$qpp$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> land = logical and
> lor = logical or
> leq = logical equal

Why not then simply "and" & "or" & "eq", and where is "not"?. And why don't you like && || ?

> >>  = logical shift right
> << = logical shift left

LOGICAL SHIFT???

> do
>    ch = fgetc(fp)
>    if (ch != EOF land ch !=  EOL) then exit
>   ...
> loop

No Pascal, please =)

    while (true)
    {
        ...
    }

"D" <s_nudds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a3lh1c$qtg$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> C syntax is a fine model to follow if you wish to continually repeat the same perpetually exposed errors.
>
> I recommend avoiding errors.
>
> Use ";" optionally.  EOL = ";" unless prefixed with a line continuation token.

BASIC fan, eh? =)
Just indent code properly, and everything is very readable. In
fact, C/C++/D code is sometimes more readable than BASIC or
Pascal one, because you read much less junk.

"Brian Bober" <netdemonz@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:a3lcbu$mp5$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> What I would like to see is an
> ability to do multi-line strings.

char[] s =
    "first line\n"
    "second line\n"
    "third line\n"
    ... ;

> How about a warning or error if two statements are on the same line?

This is the same as defining EOL as end-of-statement. And I won't be able to write something like this?

    a++; b++;
    c = a + b;

Never ever! =)

Sounds like a PITA... not a good tradeoff.

Sean

"D" <s_nudds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a3lf84$pao$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Semicolons aren't redundant in C/C++ whitespace and <EOL> are ignored.  As
a
> result semicolons are considered <EOL>.  There is no significant problems caused by considering the real <EOL> to be equivalent to a semicolon with the exception that you lose the ability to spread single statments over multiple lines.  To that end, you have to define another symbol as a line continuation symbol.  When this symbol is encountered, the next true <EOL> is ignored.
>
> It's as simple as that.
>
>
> > Javascript has optional semicolons. It sounds like a good idea, but in practice it causes a lot of subtle problems with the parser. Some level
of
> > redundancy is necessary in a useful language, because it enables the compilers to detect errors. No redundancy means that any stream of
random
> > tty noise is a valid program. Requiring semicolons in C enables more
typo
> > errors to be diagnosed at compile time rather than at debug time. Too
much
> > redundancy, however, makes a language just annoying to program in <g>.

Yeah, we've heard you already.

Sean

"D" <s_nudds@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a3lh1c$qtg$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> C syntax is a fine model to follow if you wish to continually repeat the same perpetually exposed errors.
>
> I recommend avoiding errors.
>
> Use ";" optionally.  EOL = ";" unless prefixed with a line continuation token.
>
> Pavel Minayev <evilone@omen.ru> wrote in message news:a3c1ts$2hln$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > "Keith Nash" <k.j.nash@usa.net> wrote in message news:a39e2f$2gk9$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> > We C guys have all got so used to it, I don't think it's a good idea to drop this syntax...

Pavel Minayev wrote:

> "D" <s_nudds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a3lgkl$qpp$1@digitaldaemon.com...


>>  >> = logical shift right
>>
>>  << = logical shift left
>>
> 
> LOGICAL SHIFT???


Logical shift = unsigned shift = not arithmetic shift = don't
shift in sign bits. Doesn't make a difference to the left
shift, obviously.