Bruno Medeiros: >* Having non-unicode versions of the symbols/keywords available in Unicode, >such that non-Uunicode editing and viewing is always possible as a fallback. >This has some important consequences though, such as making >Unicode-symbol-usage unable to solve the shortage of brackets for, for >example, the template instantiation syntax (because an alternative ASCII >notation would still be necessary).<
Fortress uses pairs of symbols to denote various sequence literarls. Some of them can be seen in F# too, you can see some here: http://a6systems.com/fsharpsheet.pdf Creates the list: let lsgen2 = [0 .. 2 .. 8] Gives: [0;2;4;6;8] Note: 0 .. 2 .. 8 equals to the Python slice with stride syntax 0:8:2 Create the array: let argen2 = [|0 .. 2 .. 8|] Gives: [|0;2;4;6;8|] Creating a seq (that is lazy): let s = seq { for i in 0 .. 10 do yield i } F# has also algebraic types that will become very useful in D2, as it becomes more functional (as them are useful in Scala too, that is partially functional. F# and Scala are languages to copy from because they are functional-procedural-OOP hybrids almost like D2 will want to become, D2 is so far just a bit functional, Scala is more functional, F# even more, and languages like Haskell are functional all the way), this is an Augmented Discriminated Union: type BinTree<'a> = | Node of BinTree<'a> * 'a * BinTree<'a> | Leaf with member self.Depth() = match self with | Leaf -> 0 | Node(l, _, r) -> 1 + l.Depth() + r.Depth() So D2 can use collection literals similar to those ones in F# to implement lazy/nonlazy collection generators too, this is the third iteration of my ideas on this topic (if you think succintness in (partially) functional languages is useless, think again. It allows to use certain things instead of falling back to more procedural idioms): auto flat = (abs(el) for(row: mat) for(el: row) if (el % 2)); // lazy auto multi = [c:mulIter(c, i) for(i,c: "abcdef")]; // AA auto squares = void[x*x for(x: 0..100)]; // set void[int] squares = [x*x for(x: 0..100)];// set, alternative syntax auto squares = {x*x for x in xrange(100)}; // set, alternative syntax auto squares = {| x*x for(x: 0..100) |}; // list? auto squares = [| x*x for(x: 0..100) |]; // multiset? something else? Bye, bearophile
