"Nick Sabalausky" <a...@a.a> wrote in message news:ie34p4$dg...@digitalmars.com... > "Adam D. Ruppe" <destructiona...@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:ie2sv2$2th...@digitalmars.com... >> We already have a D block syntax! >> >> ===== >> >> void myfun(void delegate() lol) { >> lol(); >> } >> >> void main() { >> myfun = { >> assert(0, "lol"); >> }; >> } >> >> ====== >> >> Totally compiles. :-P >> >> It works with delegate arguments too! >> >> ======== >> >> void myfun(void delegate(string) lol) { >> lol("say it "); >> } >> >> void main() { >> myfun = (string what) { >> assert(0, what ~ " lol"); >> }; >> } >> ========== >> >> Whoa. >> >> >> >> (note that while I'm only a little serious here - that actually >> looks fine to me - I don't think the language needs a change >> here. }); doesn't bother me one bit.) > > I'm sure that's going to disappear when D's properties get implemented as > intended. >
And FWIW, it looks like operator-overload-abuse to me.
