On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 09:53:40 UTC, meppl wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 09:27:20 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 08:15:34 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 04:16:22 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner
wrote:
int myFunc(Args...)(Args args)
if (Args.length > 2)
in (args[0] != 0)
in (args[1] > 1)
out (result => result > 0) { ... }
avoiding the "anonymous scope"-extra wouldnt hurt much?
int myFunc(Args...)(Args args)
if (Args.length > 2)
in (args[0] != 0)
in (args[1] > 1)
out (result => result > 0)
do { ... }
Adding `if (...)` should not be different from adding `in (...)`
or `out (...)` in terms of syntax rules: it's inconsistent. If
you want to have that `do` there, I would argue that it should
also become required if only an `if (...)` is present, so
---
int myFunc(Args...)(Args args)
if (Args.length > 2)
{ ... }
---
should then become illegal and must be rewritten as
---
int myFunc(Args...)(Args args)
if (Args.length > 2)
do { ... }
---
I doubt that's going to happen, though (too much code breakage),
and I also don't like it. Simply drop the `do`.
