Does using immutable for things that won't change mean that the compiler will eventually revert back to accepting the D1 function-like syntax for class invariants?

I.e.
  invariant() {  some stuff  }
Instead of
  invariant { some stuff }

Not a huge deal for me.  I was just curious.  I seem to remember people saying this was one thing that made it hard to write code that is portable between D1 and D2.

--bb

Bill Baxter wrote:
> Does using immutable for things that won't change mean that the
> compiler will eventually revert back to accepting the D1 function-like
> syntax for class invariants?
> 
> I.e.
>   invariant() {  some stuff  }
> Instead of
>   invariant { some stuff }
> 
> Not a huge deal for me.  I was just curious.  I seem to remember
> people saying this was one thing that made it hard to write code that
> is portable between D1 and D2.
> 
> --bb

but

  invariant() { ... }

is valid in D1 when D2 was released, isn't it?

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:25 PM, KennyTM~ <kennytm@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> Does using immutable for things that won't change mean that the compiler will eventually revert back to accepting the D1 function-like syntax for class invariants?
>>
>> I.e.
>>  invariant() {  some stuff  }
>> Instead of
>>  invariant { some stuff }
>>
>> Not a huge deal for me.  I was just curious.  I seem to remember people saying this was one thing that made it hard to write code that is portable between D1 and D2.
>>
>> --bb
>
> but
>
>  invariant() { ... }
>
> is valid in D1 when D2 was released, isn't it?
>

I'm not really sure what the deal is right now.  Partly why I was asking.  It's not a feature I use much, so I'm curious if the DbC fans think it should change back to the original syntax once it can.

--bb

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 9:25 AM, KennyTM~ <kennytm@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>
>> Does using immutable for things that won't change mean that the compiler will eventually revert back to accepting the D1 function-like syntax for class invariants?
>>
>> I.e.
>>  invariant() {  some stuff  }
>> Instead of
>>  invariant { some stuff }
>>
>> Not a huge deal for me.  I was just curious.  I seem to remember people saying this was one thing that made it hard to write code that is portable between D1 and D2.
>>
>> --bb
>
> but
>
>  invariant() { ... }
>
> is valid in D1 when D2 was released, isn't it?
>

Erm... I was going to say "no" but it does indeed compile.

In fact the D1 spec even shows it.

Walter, why was this never mentioned or announced?

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 9:25 AM, KennyTM~ <kennytm@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>>
>>> Does using immutable for things that won't change mean that the compiler will eventually revert back to accepting the D1 function-like syntax for class invariants?
>>>
>>> I.e.
>>>  invariant() {  some stuff  }
>>> Instead of
>>>  invariant { some stuff }
>>>
>>> Not a huge deal for me.  I was just curious.  I seem to remember people saying this was one thing that made it hard to write code that is portable between D1 and D2.
>>>
>>> --bb
>>
>> but
>>
>>  invariant() { ... }
>>
>> is valid in D1 when D2 was released, isn't it?
>>
> 
> Erm... I was going to say "no" but it does indeed compile.
> 
> In fact the D1 spec even shows it.
> 
> Walter, why was this never mentioned or announced?

It was changed when invariant was introduced to D2 as to make a transition path ... I think it was announced too.

-- 
Lars Ivar Igesund
blog at http://larsivi.net
DSource, #d.tango & #D: larsivi
Dancing the Tango

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Lars Ivar Igesund <larsivar@igesund.net> wrote:
> It was changed when invariant was introduced to D2 as to make a transition path ... I think it was announced too.

I can't find anything about it in the changelog, but maybe it was buried in the newsgroups somewhere.  W has a habit of not announcing important changes until three months later when he mentions it in passing in a reply as if everyone knew about it.

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Lars Ivar Igesund
> <larsivar@igesund.net> wrote:
>> It was changed when invariant was introduced to D2 as to make a transition
>> path ... I think it was announced too.
> 
> I can't find anything about it in the changelog, but maybe it was
> buried in the newsgroups somewhere.  W has a habit of not announcing
> important changes until three months later when he mentions it in
> passing in a reply as if everyone knew about it.

Does anyone know about

=this() {
}

?

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:18:22 +0400, Ary Borenszweig <ary@esperanto.org.ar> wrote:

> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Lars Ivar Igesund
>> <larsivar@igesund.net> wrote:
>>> It was changed when invariant was introduced to D2 as to make a transition
>>> path ... I think it was announced too.
>>  I can't find anything about it in the changelog, but maybe it was
>> buried in the newsgroups somewhere.  W has a habit of not announcing
>> important changes until three months later when he mentions it in
>> passing in a reply as if everyone knew about it.
>
> Does anyone know about
>
> =this() {
> }
>
> ?

Looks like a new/alternative syntax for struct postblitting (works in DMD2.019, too).

Denis Koroskin wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:18:22 +0400, Ary Borenszweig <ary@esperanto.org.ar> wrote:
> 
>> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Lars Ivar Igesund
>>> <larsivar@igesund.net> wrote:
>>>> It was changed when invariant was introduced to D2 as to make a transition
>>>> path ... I think it was announced too.
>>>  I can't find anything about it in the changelog, but maybe it was
>>> buried in the newsgroups somewhere.  W has a habit of not announcing
>>> important changes until three months later when he mentions it in
>>> passing in a reply as if everyone knew about it.
>>
>> Does anyone know about
>>
>> =this() {
>> }
>>
>> ?
> 
> Looks like a new/alternative syntax for struct postblitting (works in DMD2.019, too).

Yes, it's exactly that, but I didn't see it announced anywhere.

Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:

> I can't find anything about it in the changelog

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/features2.html