Permalink
Reply
On Thursday, 22 September 2022 at 01:28:11 UTC, Doigt wrote:
>On Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 10:39:27 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
> >For example:
T front() => from;
becomes:
T front => from;
As DIP author, Max decided against this. He said it's not a bad idea, but it's then "inconsistent with other the other syntaxes". If there is a demand for this, it would be easy to add later, but he felt it's better to keep things simple for now by going with the current implementation as is.
It's one of those things that aren't necessary, but bring some small "quality of life" kind of change to the code we write. At least in my opinion, I quite like it, the same way I like how I can call a parameter-less function without parentheses.
It actually makes code very hard to read
Is it a field? is it a function, does it have arguments, or maybe it is just a static function, maybe it is a property, oh shoot i have to waste time trying to figure out what it is
It is same story with imprts, so now i exclusivly use named import import xxx = my.package.here xx.my_global_function();
This way when i read code, i know exactly what is doing what and from what module
This shortened method syntax is the same, it is a method, not a field, therefore it should require (), i personally never omit it from the way i write function in my code, calling a function this way: this_is_a_function is imo very dangerous, i wish it was gone from the language
