On Tuesday, 17 December 2013 at 18:15:29 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 12/17/13 8:43 AM, Byron wrote:
I don't know why we can do this instead:
if(foo in ["alpha", "beta", "delta"] ) {
}
It's a good idea.
basically have an opIn operator x in y -> y.opIn(x)
U* opIn(T, U)(T key)
can define in runtime for arrays, and allow custom ones to be
defines
No, that should only work for literal arrays.
Any major reason why? Right now in reminds of + operator in java,
only language devs can decide how its used.
and
if(1 < x <= 10) {
}
I remember this being shot down before...
"Don't change semantics of C code".
How does this change semantics of C code anymore then in, is, ~
does? Its okay if this has been beaten to death and you don't
want to comment more on it.
Both of these are easier to read, and are more natural. They
also cover
more cases.
No - "among" could take a custom predicate.
Is that not just a special case of reduce/filter/find then?
Andrei
