typo: q{...} // comment (existing syntax) => q{...} // string literal (existing syntax)
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Timothee Cour <thelastmamm...@gmail.com> wrote: > what's D's answer for C++11's uniform initialization [1] which allows DRY > code? > > Could we have this: > ---- > struct A{ > int a; > int b; > } > > A fun(A a, int b) { > if(b==1) return i{0,1}; > else if(b==2) return i{2,3}; > else return fun(i{3,4}, 1); > } > ---- > > As for which syntax to use, that's an orthogonal question, but here I > used i{} since {} (from C++11) is already used by delegates (with > tuples also being discussed at some point, which didn't pan out bc > someone mentioned it was ambiguous in some case; see my next email > proposal below though [2]) > > ---- > {} // delegate (existing syntax) > q{...} // comment (existing syntax) > i{...} // uniform intialization (proposed syntax) > t{...} // tuple(a,b) (proposed syntax) > T{...} // TypeTuple!(a,b) (proposed syntax) > ---- > > [1] > http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/133688/is-c11-uniform-initialization-a-replacement-for-the-old-style-syntax > [2] EMAIL:proposed syntax for tuple: t{} and TypeTuple: T{}