I've been collecting ideas for D and have a couple.


 - Shortcut object access.

If you have asome long path to the object currently processing you could write:

with MainForm.BigPanel.ThisButton do {
	Text = "Blah";
	Width = 40;
	some_external_variable = 1;
}

Please note that external object access should be no problem, and name conflicts are resolved with higher priority to the with statement.

This idea has been taken from Delphi.


 - Optional separators in numbers would increase readability, for example:

int Million = 1_000_000;
float Pi = 3.14159_26535_89793;

This idea has been taken from ADA-95.


 - Non-decimal numbers in every possible base: 'base#number', where base need not be bound to usual 2,8 and so on. However, more than 36 doesn't appear possible or make sense: 10 decimals and 26 letters of alpabet.

This idea has been taken from GPC, the GNU Pascal Compiler.


Please also read about the ocaml-like patternmatcher.


-i.

Ilya Minkov <midiclub@8ung.at> wrote in news:aunba2$5ct$1@digitaldaemon.com:

> I've been collecting ideas for D and have a couple.
> 
> 
>   - Shortcut object access.
> 

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/statement.html#with

Sorry, overlooked. I'm new to D.

Patrick Down wrote:
> Ilya Minkov <midiclub@8ung.at> wrote in
> news:aunba2$5ct$1@digitaldaemon.com: 
> 
> 
>>I've been collecting ideas for D and have a couple.
>>
>>
>>  - Shortcut object access.
>>
> 
> 
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/statement.html#with

"Ilya Minkov" <midiclub@8ung.at> wrote in message news:aunba2$5ct$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>   - Optional separators in numbers would increase readability, for
example:
>
> int Million = 1_000_000;
> float Pi = 3.14159_26535_89793;
>
> This idea has been taken from ADA-95.

Does any language but ADA do this? If not, I'm not sure how useful in practice it is. It has the advantage of being simple to implement.


>   - Non-decimal numbers in every possible base: 'base#number', where
> base need not be bound to usual 2,8 and so on. However, more than 36
> doesn't appear possible or make sense: 10 decimals and 26 letters of
> alpabet.
>
> This idea has been taken from GPC, the GNU Pascal Compiler.

I'm sorry, but I haven't in 25 years of programming ever seen any use for bases other than binary, octal, decimal, and hex, and octal appears to now be obsolete. There was a thread here a while back about dumping support for octal.

Walter wrote:

> 
> "Ilya Minkov" <midiclub@8ung.at> wrote in message news:aunba2$5ct$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>>   - Optional separators in numbers would increase readability, for
> example:
>>
>> int Million = 1_000_000;
>> float Pi = 3.14159_26535_89793;
>>
>> This idea has been taken from ADA-95.
> 
> Does any language but ADA do this? If not, I'm not sure how useful in practice it is. It has the advantage of being simple to implement.

Sather does - the idea having been taken from Ada95, I suppose. :-)

I'd say, just include it. Doesn't hurt anybody, and obviously at least a few people like it.

LX appears to implement both of these ideas.

As to the use of base#num, you could eliminate the octal "0123" numbers which is more often a bug than not. If someone needs octal, he would write:
8#123

Hm. Can't think of any real use. Maybe some scientists among here show up and give an idea?


Walter wrote:
> "Ilya Minkov" <midiclub@8ung.at> wrote in message
> news:aunba2$5ct$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>  - Optional separators in numbers would increase readability, for
> 
> example:
> 
>>int Million = 1_000_000;
>>float Pi = 3.14159_26535_89793;
>>
>>This idea has been taken from ADA-95.
> 
> 
> Does any language but ADA do this? If not, I'm not sure how useful in
> practice it is. It has the advantage of being simple to implement.
> 
> 
> 
>>  - Non-decimal numbers in every possible base: 'base#number', where
>>base need not be bound to usual 2,8 and so on. However, more than 36
>>doesn't appear possible or make sense: 10 decimals and 26 letters of
>>alpabet.
>>
>>This idea has been taken from GPC, the GNU Pascal Compiler.
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I haven't in 25 years of programming ever seen any use for
> bases other than binary, octal, decimal, and hex, and octal appears to now
> be obsolete. There was a thread here a while back about dumping support for
> octal.
> 

Ilya Minkov wrote:
> LX appears to implement both of these ideas.
> 
> As to the use of base#num, you could eliminate the octal "0123" numbers which is more often a bug than not. If someone needs octal, he would write:
> 8#123
> 
> Hm. Can't think of any real use. Maybe some scientists among here show up and give an idea?

Seems like varied-base numbers are far more important for user I/O than for programming constants.  After all, you can always code it manually, and comment your code:

	int foo = 83; // 83 decimal is 123 octal

"Ilya Minkov" <midiclub@tiscali.de> escreveu na mensagem news:b0m1s6$119k$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> LX appears to implement both of these ideas.
>
> As to the use of base#num, you could eliminate the octal "0123" numbers which is more often a bug than not. If someone needs octal, he would
write:
> 8#123
>
> Hm. Can't think of any real use. Maybe some scientists among here show up and give an idea?
>

During my physics grad course I'd never used anything except base 10. Sometimes I toy around with hex or binary, but I can convert between them easily, so no problem here. If D had any syntax for arbitrary bases, each line of code using them for anything else octal, binary or hexadecimal would raise my bug alarm.


int foo = 27#198BH8S;


But it would be great for obfuscation ;-)


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.443 / Virus Database: 248 - Release Date: 10/1/2003

Daniel Yokomiso wrote:
>>8#123
> During my physics grad course I'd never used anything except base 10.
> Sometimes I toy around with hex or binary, but I can convert between them
> easily, so no problem here. If D had any syntax for arbitrary bases, each
> line of code using them for anything else octal, binary or hexadecimal would
> raise my bug alarm.
> 
> int foo = 27#198BH8S;
> 
> But it would be great for obfuscation ;-)

Right. Storing lowercase text in a compressed form :>

-i.

"Norbert Nemec" <nobbi_at_theorie3.physik.uni-erlangen.de@NOSPAM.COM> wrote in message news:b0logj$rim$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> I'd say, just include it. Doesn't hurt anybody, and obviously at least a
few
> people like it.

Every added feature makes the language larger and buggier. I need a compelling case for a new feature.