Maybe it's too late for this, but I think:

cast( int, 34.5 );

looks a lot nicer than:

cast( int) 34.5;

less parenthesis; function call-like syntax... don't know, what do you people think?

Juanjo Álvarez wrote:
> Maybe it's too late for this, but I think:
> 
> cast( int, 34.5 );
> 
> looks a lot nicer than:
> 
> cast( int) 34.5;
> 
> less parenthesis; function call-like syntax... don't know, what do you
> people think?

Suffice to say that this exact syntax has been proposed by unrelated individuals at least three times over the past year or so. :)

 -- andy

Andy Friesen wrote:

> Juanjo Álvarez wrote:
>> Maybe it's too late for this, but I think:
>> 
>> cast( int, 34.5 );
>> 
>> looks a lot nicer than:
>> 
>> cast( int) 34.5;
>> 
>> less parenthesis; function call-like syntax... don't know, what do you people think?
> 
> Suffice to say that this exact syntax has been proposed by unrelated individuals at least three times over the past year or so. :)

Another reason, we've

Figure
  Rectangle
    Square

Now compare:

cast( Figure, cast( Rectangle, Square) );

with

cast(Figure) ( cast(Rectangle) Square );

Which is more readable?

Juanjo Álvarez wrote:
> Andy Friesen wrote:
> 
> 
>>Juanjo Álvarez wrote:
>>
>>>Maybe it's too late for this, but I think:
>>>
>>>cast( int, 34.5 );
>>>
>>>looks a lot nicer than:
>>>
>>>cast( int) 34.5;
>>>
>>>less parenthesis; function call-like syntax... don't know, what do you
>>>people think?
>>
>>Suffice to say that this exact syntax has been proposed by unrelated
>>individuals at least three times over the past year or so. :)
> 
> 
> Another reason, we've
> 
> Figure
>   Rectangle
>     Square
> 
> Now compare:
> 
> cast( Figure, cast( Rectangle, Square) );
> 
> with
> 
> cast(Figure) ( cast(Rectangle) Square );
> 
> Which is more readable?

I would argue that it doesn't matter: if you're casting a lot, you may have other problems.  Bear in mind, though, that I rather like the C++ cast syntax because it's so ugly.  It is, after all, an ugly concept. :)

At any rate, double-casting is only ever needed when you are doing things that you absolutely should not ever do: casting object references to and from non-pointer types. (confusing the GC is a Bad Idea)

 -- andy

In article <cenej0$sae$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Juanjo =?ISO-8859-15?Q?=C1lvarez?= says...
>
>Now compare:
>
>cast( Figure, cast( Rectangle, Square) );
>
>with
>
>cast(Figure) ( cast(Rectangle) Square );
>
>Which is more readable?

cast(Figure) Square; // Double cast achieves nothing.

<sarcasm>Hey, let's copy C++:
static_cast!(int)(x)
dynamic_cast!(int)(x)
reinterpret_cast!(int)(x)
const_cast!(int)(x)
</sarcasm>

Arcane Jill

"Juanjo Álvarez" <juanjuxNO@SPAMyahoo.es> wrote in message news:cenej0$sae$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Andy Friesen wrote:
>
> > Juanjo Álvarez wrote:
> >> Maybe it's too late for this, but I think:
> >>
> >> cast( int, 34.5 );
> >>
> >> looks a lot nicer than:
> >>
> >> cast( int) 34.5;
> >>
> >> less parenthesis; function call-like syntax... don't know, what do you people think?
> >
> > Suffice to say that this exact syntax has been proposed by unrelated individuals at least three times over the past year or so. :)
>
> Another reason, we've
>
> Figure
>   Rectangle
>     Square
>
> Now compare:
>
> cast( Figure, cast( Rectangle, Square) );
>
> with
>
> cast(Figure) ( cast(Rectangle) Square );

Surprisingly, the second one, i.e. the current syntax

Juanjo Álvarez wrote:
> Maybe it's too late for this, but I think:
> 
> cast( int, 34.5 );
> 
> looks a lot nicer than:
> 
> cast( int) 34.5;
> 
> less parenthesis; function call-like syntax... don't know, what do you
> people think?

By my count, it's the same number of parentheses (and it adds a comma). Explain to me how that's a benefit. ;)

Anyways, I don't see what the problem is with the current much-maligned cast syntax. It's only slightly different than the C-style, so it shouldn't be hard for C/C++ pros to learn. It doesn't require a tremendous amount of typing, and it's readable. And, as others have written, if a person is doing a lot of casting it could be the sign of a poor design.

-- 
Justin (a/k/a jcc7)
http://jcc_7.tripod.com/d/

"J C Calvarese" <jcc7@cox.net> wrote in message news:ceptnf$1vjb$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Juanjo Álvarez wrote:
> > Maybe it's too late for this, but I think:
> >
> > cast( int, 34.5 );
> >
> > looks a lot nicer than:
> >
> > cast( int) 34.5;
> >
> > less parenthesis; function call-like syntax... don't know, what do you people think?
>
> By my count, it's the same number of parentheses (and it adds a comma).
> Explain to me how that's a benefit. ;)
>
> Anyways, I don't see what the problem is with the current much-maligned cast syntax. It's only slightly different than the C-style, so it shouldn't be hard for C/C++ pros to learn. It doesn't require a tremendous amount of typing, and it's readable. And, as others have written, if a person is doing a lot of casting it could be the sign of a poor design.

There's nothing wrong with it, since it's uniquely greppable (and therefore supportive of automation-assisted code review). That was the major flaw with C-style casts.

In terms of what it does, it can be argued that one cast to cast them all is a little careless, wrt C++'s delineation of casting responsibilities, but I can live with it because it's greppable.

And your last line has it correct. I try to keep the casting abstracted into worker functions, and then use the D types in the main functional code. That works pretty well.