On 02/12/2011 03:17 PM, bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
It's a problem of semantics. ~ is intended for eager concatenation. That's how
it's designed and what it's expected to mean.
This is written nowhere. I am referring to my second proposal. It makes code
more generic, because it allows you to use ~ for both arrays and lazy iterables
in a polymorphic situation, and the computational complexity here is not a
problem. I'd like to know Andrei opinion on this :-)
More importantly, that's how it
works for arrays. If you made it lower to chain, then either ~ for arrays has
become lazy (along with every other user-defined type which overloads
opBinary!"~" and made it eager as would be expected),
I agree, that's why I have prosed a second alternative that lacks this problem
(it doesn't use lowering, just operator overloading and a mixin).
Regardless, as it's not going to be implemented any time soon, there's not much
point in debating it right now.
My second suggestion is related for Phobos only, and it's implementable now, if
there's enough desire.
Holà bearophile,
what about using '*' for chaining syntax sugar. I mean, func composition is
often written using '.' which means product (and is sometimes even spelled
"product" for functions too), right? And product is written '*' in D... What do
you think?
denis
--
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com
