On Nov 18, 09 07:25, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Ellery Newcomer
<ellery-newco...@utulsa.edu> wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 1:51 PM, KennyTM~<kenn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 18, 09 05:40, Ellery Newcomer wrote:
Bill Baxter wrote:
However, I think for the good of humanity we can accept that one
little bizarre example of legal C syntax not doing the same thing in
D.
int[] i;
auto a = (i)[0];
what does this do?
(i) should not construct a tuple. Probably (i,).
That's Python's solution and it seems to work out ok.
--bb
How do we express tuple types? ...
These won't work:
...
(int,int) [] lst; //want
Why won't that work? You may be right, but that particular
declaration doesn't seem ambiguous to me.
--bb
foo!( (i,i) ) ();
compiler doesn't know if 'i' is a type or a variable.
Like I said, the problem already exists for eg
foo!( i ) ();
and isn't semantically ambiguous (as far as I know..), so it is doable.
at statement level, it would require a lot of lookahead to distinguish eg
(i,i)[0] = blah;
(i,i)[0] blah;
Not my idea of good language design (one character deep in the
production - can you say fortran :) actually fortran is worse, it
discards whitespace as token separators)
int[2][2][2][2][2][2][2][2][2][2] a;
alias int b;
a[1][1][1][1][1][1][1][1][1][1] = c;
b[1][1][1][1][1][1][1][1][1][1] d;
still a lot of look ahead :p
