Dejan Lekic:
Dear D community, I do not know about You, but I certainly do
not like writing code like:
inRange.fooRange(param).barRange.
.bazRange(param1, param2).outRange;
I suggest to format it this way, it's more readable:
auto something = inRange
.fooRange(param)
.barRange()
.bazRange(param1, param2)
.outRange();
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
I think it doesn't give a significant improvement. But maybe
there are more interesting use cases.
I'd like D ranges to support the "~" (using a template mixin to
give them such operator), that acts like chain. So instead of
writing:
range1.chain(range2)
You write:
range1 ~ range2
It's also nice to have lazy lists, maybe based on fibers, with
few operators to concat them, etc.
Bye,
bearophile
