On 6 August 2013 19:25, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg@gmx.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, August 06, 2013 11:05:56 Jakob Ovrum wrote:
> What does everyone think?

I'm completely opposed to the removal of string lambdas. Obviously, they don't
always work. More complicated functions definitely need to use the newer lambda
syntax or function literals. But for simple lambdas, they're way better. I'd
_much_ rather have func!"a != b"(args) than func!((a, b) => a != b)(args) or
func!"a < b"(args) than func!((a, b) => a < b)(args). String lambdas are nice
and short, and I think that they're plenty clear, and if they're not, they're
trivial to explain.

Can you give an example where you've actually used a string lambda before where the predicate is more complex than a basic comparison?

Surely the solution to this problem is to offer a bunch of templates that perform the most common predicates in place of unary/binaryFun?

So rather than: func!((a, b) => a < b)(args)

You use: func!binaryLess(args)

Or something like that?

The thing that annoys me about string vs proper lambda's, is that I never know which one I'm supposed to use. I need to refer to documentation every time.

Also, the syntax highlighting fails.

We already have string lambdas. Removing them would break code for little
benefit IMHO. If you prefer to use the newer lambda syntax, then use that, but
I think that it's a definite loss if we get rid of the string lambdas, as
they're so much more concise when they do work.

I also think that all new Phobos functions which take unary or binary
predicates should support string lambdas. It's trivial for them to do so, and
it creates needless inconsistencies if some functions support them and some
don't.

- Jonathan M Davis