bearophile wrote:
Paul D. Anderson:
1. The list of changes is small and shrinking. Only five will make
the cut.
It's a very small list. So I ask myself why they have chosen some of
the few things thay have chosen.
One of those five precios things is the "Elvis" operator: Exp1 ?:
Exp2
That means: If Exp1 is non-null, use that, otherwise evaluate and use
Exp2
Adding it to D looks easy, but is such operator so important to be in
the list of the only 5 things to add? I don't currently feel the need
of it.
I agree. D has it already by the way:
Exp1 && Exp2;
2. Many of the requested syntax changes already exist in D. (Of
course.)<
Some people have asked for invokedynamic, that is already present in
C#4 in a different form. We'll not see that soon in D.
What is invokedynamic?
Andrei
