On Wednesday, 21 June 2017 at 12:05:55 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
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`.
yeah, i was probably not thinking too carefully about it. My idea
was to keep the code readable, if the contracts are long. but as
long as the "do" must appear behind a '}', everything is still
fine, more or less.
int myFunc1(Args...)(Args args)
if (Args.length > 2)
in
{
// much code
}
do
{
...
}
int myFunc2(Args...)(Args args)
if (Args.length > 2)
in
{
// much code
}
out (result => result > 0)
{
...
}
both are readable, but one time we write `do` and the other time
we dont. furthermore the second function body looks a little bit
like belonging to "out". someone who is learning the D-language
might get confused.
