On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 14:02:37 -0400, Leandro Lucarella <llu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Michiel Helvensteijn, el 2 de agosto a las 16:25 me escribiste:
KennyTM~ wrote:
>> Interesting. I don't think I've seen this angle yet.
>>
>> Could you provide code examples, please?
>
> "<p>yes?</p>".replace("<", "<").replace(">", ">");
Sure, but they have parameters, so they require parentheses anyway.
Robert
Jacques was talking about omissible parentheses for function chaining.
That
would require parameter-less functions.
Well, just take parameter-less functions then:
" hello ".strip.toupper.replace("O", "A"); // "HELLA"
(I don't know if that even compiles in D2)
I think it's better to have mandatory (), though. Even when you save
a couple of strokes there, I find that code way more confusing than the
same with () (from that code it looks like hello has a strip property
which in case have a toupper property which then have a replace method).
Again, is a tradeoff between writeability and readability. I think is way
more important to prioritize readability.
I think its better to prioritize readability too, it's just that to me
"hello".strip.toupper; is more readable than "hello".strip().toupper();.
I've long since ceased to use () on zero argument functions and have never
looked back.
BTW, I think you meant a strip field, since a property is just a method
call with some syntactic sugar.
