On Wednesday, 7 November 2012 at 13:21:36 UTC, Peter Alexander
wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 November 2012 at 13:07:13 UTC, Dejan Lekic
wrote:
Therefore I would like to know what do you think about the
idea of having additional operator exclusively made for
ranges? This operator would make it obvious that data are
"streamed" (lack of better term) among ranges.
The first name I could come up with was "opArrow" but "opData"
could also be okay, and operator would be either "~>" or "->".
This would give us an obvious, unambiguous statement:
Console.in ~> filter1(param) ~> fooRange ~> Console.out;
// Console is an imaginary class/struct
Or:
arr ~> odd ~> random ~> randomOdd;
I'm confused. So does this new operator just do the same thing
as dot, but only work with ranges? Or does it have additional
useful semantics?
UFCS is what makes that code-mess I started with.
Imagine having ranges be part of some objects. I already gave an
example of Console.in and Console.out. But say they are even
deeper, so you have to refer to them using obj1.member.range
notation, and now imagine using dot operator in some complex
operation on ranges where you chain 5 or more ranges... All those
dots and parenthesis can make head boil (at least it does make my
head boil, not to mention that my colleague can's easily
understand that statement at all written using UFCS).
