"Walter Bright" <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:iejejo$pf...@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> Any problem with the other Scala/C#-style one?:
>>
>> (x, y) => x * y
>>
>> // Lowered to:
>>
>> (x, y) { return x * y; }
>>
>> (Maybe that was rejected before due the the weird float operators that
>> are now being ditched?)
>
> The problem with the (x,y) parameter lists, where x and y are the
> parameters, is that it is ambiguous with the existing syntax of (x,y)
> where x and y are types and the parameters are omitted.
>
> For example:
>
> void foo(int);
But we already have:
(x, y) { return x * y; }
So either there aren't any problems with it after all, or D's existing
delegate syntax is already broken.
To be clear, with what I'm trying to suggest, the *only* thing that would be
different from the current delegate literal syntax is that part *after* the
parameter list. Ie:
PARAM_LIST_HERE { return x * y; }
// -->
PARAM_LIST_HERE => x * y
Or if there's a problem with =>, then ->, or -->, or ::>, or :>, or
whatever. I'm not suggesting the param list be different in any way fromhow
t is now. (Although proposals from other people might differ.)
