On 05/30/2013 06:13 AM, MrzlganeE wrote:

> I hate you all

But I liked your idea! :) (I still like you too.)

I had seen the syntax in Robert Griesemer's "Go for C programmers" talk. I had no objections when watchinğ the talk and it still seems fine now.

Ali

> Over-react much?
>
> Bear in mind that everyone posting here is on equal footing and simply sharing opinions.  The only people you really need to convince are Walter or Andrei, or someone else who is actually influential.. perhaps Don.
>
> You can safely ignore almost everyone else :p
>
> R


I'm gonna hold out hope here and hope Walter will say Yes

Please Walter
Please Andrei

Let me have the math

Please sir

On 5/30/13 9:13 AM, MrzlganeE wrote:
> I hate you all, and with this, I exit the D community

How can one exit what one hasn't entered?

> The only reason I was here was I dreamed that I could get a couple of
> features

You need to understand that this is a common trend among newcomers, and that they all want to add a couple of _different_ features.


Andrei

The := operator can allow a special behavior,
Declaring+defining multiple values from a single return:

x, y, z := f();

/

auto x = f(), y = f(), z = f();
auto x = f(); auto y = x, z = x;

And the alternative:

x, y, z := f(), g(), h();

On Thursday, 30 May 2013 at 18:41:13 UTC, MrzlganeE wrote:
>> Over-react much?
>>
>> Bear in mind that everyone posting here is on equal footing and simply sharing opinions.  The only people you really need to convince are Walter or Andrei, or someone else who is actually influential.. perhaps Don.
>>
>> You can safely ignore almost everyone else :p
>>
>> R
>
>
> I'm gonna hold out hope here and hope Walter will say Yes
>
> Please Walter
> Please Andrei
>
> Let me have the math
>
> Please sir

If you're not trolling, you're making a very good impression of someone who is.

On Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:38:09 Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 05/30/2013 10:50 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > Personally, I don't think think that the extra complication caused by having another syntax for something that we already have is worth it, regardless of whether it's aesthetically pleasing or not.
> 
> The complexity argument is not a strong argument for such a simple feature (It takes around 10 minutes to implement in a compiler and 2s to learn.), especially given the existing complexity of D.

Except that even if the feature doesn't add a lot of complexity by itself, each feature you add to the language adds to the total complexity, and it adds up. If we were willing to add new features simply because they didn't add much complexity, pretty soon, you'd have quite a bit of complexity. New features need to add a real benefit to be worth complicating the language yet further. And I don't think that this does by a long shot. auto already provides us with this functionality. It's just that the syntax for auto doesn't fit the OP's tastes.

- Jonathan M Davis

> this functionality. It's just that the syntax for auto doesn't fit the OP's
> tastes.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

As in Go this would potentially allow tuple assignments in a way that auto does not.

x, string y := awesomeFunction();

> This sort of work would - along with other ideas such as physical units etc. - be best placed in a lightweight DSL (domain specific language) that simply hides the necessary mixins etc.
>
> D lends itself to this wonderfully, it would make for a very nice mathematical/scientific language. I'm almost tempted to make such a language myself. Integrated with SciD.... ?? Hmmm, I feel a project coming on.

This could be a very interesting project. What do you think of Go's rules for inserting semi-colons? This and a few other tweaks (perhaps some of the parens removal too?) could allow a very elegant and minimal form of D, a subset with slightly stricter layout rules rather than a new language.

On 5/30/13 10:27 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
> I still like:
>
> 	x := 1
>
> for a declaration and initialization with type inference.

I like it too, and Go users seem to find it handy.

Andrei