On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 05:40:32 +0400, Steven Schveighoffer <schvei...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 21:10:27 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
Adam Burton wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
What about using something like '->' for dynamic calls instead of
'.'?
That's absolutely useless. If I have to write anything different from
"." I might as well write "bloodyMaryBloodyMaryBloodyMary".
Andrei
You could even write 'noodles' but that doesn't really give me a
reason as to why it's absolutely useless. Please clarify, I thought it
seemed like a reasonable idea, if it isn't I would like to know why.
I apologize for the snapping. There's no excuse really, but let me
mention that this thread has been particularly meandering.
The point of using "." is not syntactic convenience as much as the
ability of the Dynamic structure to work out of the box with algorithms
that use the standard notation.
Hm... the thought just occurred to me.
At what time are you going to use opDotExp so an entity be used in an
algorithm rather than actually defining the functions directly? For
example, if you want to make a class/struct a range, why not just define
the functions directly? It seems odd to define them using opDotExp.
Variant variantRange = someRange();
foreach (element; variantRange) {
// ...
}
Variant forwards all the front/back/etc methods to an underlying range.
