On Thursday, 22 September 2022 at 01:28:11 UTC, Doigt wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 10:39:27 UTC, Mike Parker
wrote:
For example:
T front() => from;
becomes:
T front => from;
As DIP author, Max decided against this. He said it's not a
bad idea, but it's then "inconsistent with other the other
syntaxes". If there is a demand for this, it would be easy to
add later, but he felt it's better to keep things simple for
now by going with the current implementation as is.
It's one of those things that aren't necessary, but bring some
small "quality of life" kind of change to the code we write. At
least in my opinion, I quite like it, the same way I like how I
can call a parameter-less function without parentheses.
It actually makes code very hard to read
Is it a field? is it a function, does it have arguments, or maybe
it is just a static function, maybe it is a property, oh shoot i
have to waste time trying to figure out what it is
It is same story with imprts, so now i exclusivly use named
import ``import xxx = my.package.here``
``xx.my_global_function();``
This way when i read code, i know exactly what is doing what and
from what module
This shortened method syntax is the same, it is a method, not a
field, therefore it should require ``()``, i personally never
omit it from the way i write function in my code, calling a
function this way: ``this_is_a_function`` is imo very dangerous,
i wish it was gone from the language