On 10/21/16 10:38 AM, mogu wrote:
On Friday, 21 October 2016 at 14:22:27 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 10/21/16 10:12 AM, Temtaime wrote:
On Friday, 21 October 2016 at 13:42:49 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Friday, 21 October 2016 at 13:33:26 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
[...]
Eh, that's exactly what the language rules say should happen, and it
actually does make sense to me... you might even want to use an
immediately-called lambda to group several statements together into
one expression.
[...]
Please, no.
It's fully clear that { stmts } createa a lambda, just () is ommited.
No, it's not.
{ int x; x = 2; }
Is not a lambda. It's a scope.
So the meaning changes based on where it's used. I totally agree that
we should remove that feature.
{} in swift is a lambda too.
Swift doesn't have arbitrary scopes. So there is no ambiguity.
I think swift has better lambda syntax.
Maybe could help for a better syntax in d.
We likely are not going to change the lambda syntax. However, it's
possible we could remove the ambiguous cases.
reversedNames = names.sorted(by: { (s1: String, s2: String) -> Bool in
return s1 > s2
})
reversedNames = names.sorted(by: { (s1: String, s2: String) -> Bool in
return s1 > s2 } )
reversedNames = names.sorted(by: { s1, s2 in return s1 > s2 } )
reversedNames = names.sorted(by: { s1, s2 in s1 > s2 } )
(s1, s2) => s1 > s2
Seems pretty good to me
reversedNames = names.sorted(by: { $0 > $1 } )
With the original string lambdas, this was possible as "a > b". I'm not
sure this case is worth much effort to add.
reversedNames = names.sorted(by: >)
Not sure if we'll ever get this in D :)
someFunctionThatTakesAClosure(closure: {
// closure's body goes here
})
someFunctionThatTakesAClosure() {
// trailing closure's body goes here
}
Yes, I've seen and used this. I think this is actually a little confusing.
-Steve
