Just wanted to suggest that auto ( the auto that means destroy on scope exit ) , be renamed to raii , or anything that eliminates the double meaning of 'auto'.  I know auto in C was used to mean something similar, but C has no automatic-type-deduction named auto, and the current situation in D prevents one from doing an auto(type-deduction) auto(destroy) declaration, as in : auto auto a = new MyClass;

Thx!  It is only an aesthetic change I know but I think it will add a lot to the general flow of the language, as well as allow type deduced raii variable declaration.

Charlie

Actually a further revision , based on an archived post I think this syntax:

MyClass c = local MyClass();

works better.  It looks good, and is very explicit.  'local' can be replaced with 'raii' , 'stack' or whatever you like.

Charles wrote:
> Just wanted to suggest that auto ( the auto that means destroy on scope exit ) , be renamed to raii , or anything that eliminates the double meaning of 'auto'.  I know auto in C was used to mean something similar, but C has no automatic-type-deduction named auto, and the current situation in D prevents one from doing an auto(type-deduction) auto(destroy) declaration, as in : auto auto a = new MyClass;
> 
> Thx!  It is only an aesthetic change I know but I think it will add a lot to the general flow of the language, as well as allow type deduced raii variable declaration.
> 
> Charlie

Charles wrote:
> Actually a further revision , based on an archived post I think this syntax:
> 
> MyClass c = local MyClass();

If memory serves, Walter current view is:
a) For stack variable MyClass c = MyClass(); or auto c = MyClass();
and
b) For global variable MyClass c = new MyClass(); or auto c = new MyClass();

I'm not sure what is the benefit replacing a) by
MyClass c = local MyClass(); or auto c = local MyClass(); for stack variable?

What would be the meaning of 'MyClass c = MyClass();', the global case, dropping the new? Forbiddeb? Or something else?

RenoX

PS:
just some advertising for my own view: replacing 'auto' by a ':=' operator for type deduction (I liked too much Limbo syntax probably), which would make:
1) for stack variable  c := MyClass(); (of course MyClass c = MyClass(); would still work)
2) for global variable c := new MyClass(); (of course MyClass c = new MyClass(); would still work).


> works better.  It looks good, and is very explicit.  'local' can be replaced with 'raii' , 'stack' or whatever you like.
> 
> Charles wrote:
> 
>> Just wanted to suggest that auto ( the auto that means destroy on scope exit ) , be renamed to raii , or anything that eliminates the double meaning of 'auto'.  I know auto in C was used to mean something similar, but C has no automatic-type-deduction named auto, and the current situation in D prevents one from doing an auto(type-deduction) auto(destroy) declaration, as in : auto auto a = new MyClass;
>>
>> Thx!  It is only an aesthetic change I know but I think it will add a lot to the general flow of the language, as well as allow type deduced raii variable declaration.
>>
>> Charlie

> If memory serves, Walter current view is:

Oh ok, Im anxious to see that change happen then :).

> 1) for stack variable  c := MyClass(); (of course MyClass c = MyClass();
> would still work)
> 2) for global variable c := new MyClass(); (of course MyClass c = new
> MyClass(); would still work).

I like that idea!


renox wrote:
> Charles wrote:
>> Actually a further revision , based on an archived post I think this syntax:
>>
>> MyClass c = local MyClass();
> 
> If memory serves, Walter current view is:
> a) For stack variable MyClass c = MyClass(); or auto c = MyClass();
> and
> b) For global variable MyClass c = new MyClass(); or auto c = new MyClass();
> 
> I'm not sure what is the benefit replacing a) by
> MyClass c = local MyClass(); or auto c = local MyClass(); for stack variable?
> 
> What would be the meaning of 'MyClass c = MyClass();', the global case, dropping the new? Forbiddeb? Or something else?
> 
> RenoX
> 
> PS:
> just some advertising for my own view: replacing 'auto' by a ':=' operator for type deduction (I liked too much Limbo syntax probably), which would make:
> 1) for stack variable  c := MyClass(); (of course MyClass c = MyClass(); would still work)
> 2) for global variable c := new MyClass(); (of course MyClass c = new MyClass(); would still work).
> 
> 
>> works better.  It looks good, and is very explicit.  'local' can be replaced with 'raii' , 'stack' or whatever you like.
>>
>> Charles wrote:
>>
>>> Just wanted to suggest that auto ( the auto that means destroy on scope exit ) , be renamed to raii , or anything that eliminates the double meaning of 'auto'.  I know auto in C was used to mean something similar, but C has no automatic-type-deduction named auto, and the current situation in D prevents one from doing an auto(type-deduction) auto(destroy) declaration, as in : auto auto a = new MyClass;
>>>
>>> Thx!  It is only an aesthetic change I know but I think it will add a lot to the general flow of the language, as well as allow type deduced raii variable declaration.
>>>
>>> Charlie

"renox" <renosky@free.fr> wrote in message news:ec2of6$2rj6$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> If memory serves, Walter current view is:
> a) For stack variable MyClass c = MyClass(); or auto c = MyClass();
> and
> b) For global variable MyClass c = new MyClass(); or auto c = new
> MyClass();

I don't know why he likes that syntax.  He's a big opponent of "easy-to-mess-up" syntax, and I sure can't see much of a difference between "c = MyClass()" and "c = new MyClass()".

I agree, it certainly is easy to miss.  I imagine he doesn't want to introduce a new keyword for it , but renox's syntax of := I think is an elegant solution !



Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> "renox" <renosky@free.fr> wrote in message news:ec2of6$2rj6$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>> If memory serves, Walter current view is:
>> a) For stack variable MyClass c = MyClass(); or auto c = MyClass();
>> and
>> b) For global variable MyClass c = new MyClass(); or auto c = new MyClass();
> 
> I don't know why he likes that syntax.  He's a big opponent of "easy-to-mess-up" syntax, and I sure can't see much of a difference between "c = MyClass()" and "c = new MyClass()". 
> 
>