Walter wrote:

> "Sha Chancellor" <schancel@pacific.net> wrote in message
> news:cds920$2us1$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>>I think I like the $ as the best alternative also. :P
>>
>>Foo$(int) looks good to me.
> 
> Yeah, but you'd run afoul of all those folks who want to use $ as a synonym
> for array.length <g>.

Maybe we should show some international awareness....

    Foo£(int)

:-)

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Stewart Gordon wrote:
> Maybe we should show some international awareness....
>     Foo£(int)

While we're at it, let me propose
  Foo如(int)

-Chris S.
-Invironz

In article <ce2naq$oi2$3@digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...

>Maybe we should show some international awareness....
>
>     Foo£(int)
>
>:-)
>
>Stewart.

I realise you were joking. (I noticed the smiley!). But in general we should all be aware that this sort of thing is not possible. From the D manual:

D source text can be in one of the following formats:

* ASCII
* UTF-8
* UTF-16BE
* UTF-16LE
* UTF-32BE
* UTF-32LE

You'd have to cross ASCII off that list if we were to allow non-ASCII characters in required syntax.

Jill

In article <cdsb9n$30ne$1@digitaldaemon.com>, J C Calvarese says...

>> Foo<int>

>But there's a good reason why D didn't go down this road. Using < and > for templates invites all kinds of parsing headaches (something about how < and > are already operators). It's Walter's compiler and he wanted to design it so that parsing is easy and fun.

Hmmm. Then I think Walter should stop writing <g> in his emails.

Jill  !(g)

>Why are we using the ! symbol for templates?  Couldn't we use a | or something else?  # isn't used, neither is @ or $.
€ isn't used either. I think $ is a pretty stupid symbol.

>OT: If I were making up the syntax, I'd make it use Python-like indentation instead of curly braces but that's just the broken CPU in my head ;)
>
Nope. We wrote a preprocessor for C++ to do just that!

int main ()
cout << "Hello, World\n"


way cooler then

int main ()
{
cout << "Hello, World\n"
}

Arcane Jill wrote:

> In article <ce2naq$oi2$3@digitaldaemon.com>, Stewart Gordon says...
> 
>> Maybe we should show some international awareness....
>>
>>     Foo£(int)
>>
>> :-)
<snip>
> You'd have to cross ASCII off that list if we were to allow non-ASCII characters
> in required syntax.

I realise you realise I was joking.  (I noticed the acknowledgement of the smiley!)  But a module isn't required to instantiate templates for it to be a valid D module.

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Mike Parker wrote:

> h3r3tic wrote:
> 
>> Sorry, but what's the reason ? D is a new language, it's not meant to be
>> compatible with C or C++. Why then restrict to that 30 year old standard ?
> 
> 
> Ah, but it is meant to be compatible with C at the binary level and, to a lesser extent, at the syntax level. The less you deviate from traditional C syntax the easier it is to learn the language.

Yes, but the D templating feature is a complete deviation from
C/C++/Java/C# templates (they all use the angle bracket notation <>)
already.  So either use that notation, or if it makes sense, finish
the job and use a character not in use in the C language already.

WOT: Someone I know and respect (having been in the computing industry
for a long time) seriously believes that the creators of C (and Unix)
did it as a practical joke.  "Why not make things as obtuse as
possible?"  In the process of making it obtuse, it was also very
powerful, and caught on like wildfire (better than using COBOL or
assembly for cross platform work).  I don't have anything to support
his claims, but it is just crazy enough to have some truth to it :)

Arcane Jill wrote:

> In article <cdsb9n$30ne$1@digitaldaemon.com>, J C Calvarese says...
> 
> 
>>>Foo<int>
> 
> 
>>But there's a good reason why D didn't go down this road. Using < and > for templates invites all kinds of parsing headaches (something about how < and > are already operators). It's Walter's compiler and he wanted to design it so that parsing is easy and fun.
> 
> 
> Hmmm. Then I think Walter should stop writing <g> in his emails.
> 
> Jill  !(g)

Great one!  ROTFLOL

Berin Loritsch wrote:
> Arcane Jill wrote:
> 
>> In article <cdsb9n$30ne$1@digitaldaemon.com>, J C Calvarese says...
>>
>>
>>>> Foo<int>
>>
>>
>>
>>> But there's a good reason why D didn't go down this road. Using < and 
>>> > for templates invites all kinds of parsing headaches (something 
>>> about how < and > are already operators). It's Walter's compiler and he wanted to design it so that parsing is easy and fun.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hmmm. Then I think Walter should stop writing <g> in his emails.
>>
>> Jill  !(g)
> 
> 
> Great one!  ROTFLOL

Or just at least use <g /> to be compatible with XHTML and not spreading that old HTML bullshit