On 2011-03-07 01:13, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Sunday 06 March 2011 06:03:31 Russel Winder wrote:
OK, this one surprised me, all that remains is for me to find out why it
shouldn't have done:
reduce ! ( ( a , b ) { return a + b ; } ) ( 0.0 , outputData )
works just fine, but:
reduce ! ( function double ( double a , double b ) { return a + b ;
} ) ( 0.0 , outputData )
results in:
pi_d2_sequentialMap.d(45): Error: function
std.algorithm.reduce!(function double(double a, double b) {
return a + b;
}
).reduce!(double,Map!(partialSum,Tuple!(int,int,double)[])).reduce.__funcl
iteral1 cannot access frame of function
pi_d2_sequentialMap.execute.__funcliteral1 pi_d2_sequentialMap.d(45):
Error: function std.algorithm.reduce!(function double(double a, double b)
{
return a + b;
}
).reduce!(double,Map!(partialSum,Tuple!(int,int,double)[])).reduce.__funcl
iteral1 cannot access frame of function
pi_d2_sequentialMap.execute.__funcliteral1
which I think qualifies for the label "incomprehensible". Not to
mention repetitious.
PS If you ask why not:
reduce ! ( "a+b" ) ( 0.0 , outputData )
I find this somehow unacceptable. It's the string, its not a function.
Fine, my problem, but that still leaves the above.
LOL. Whereas I find reduce!"a+b" _far_ clearer then having to write out the
whole
lambda function. Sure, there are cases where the string syntax doesn't cut it,
but it's so much shorter and yet still perfectly clear (no extraneous parameter
lists or braces or semicolons...), that I think that it's pretty much always
preferred to actual, in-place lambda functions.
- Jonathan M Davis
Yes, but a different, less verbose, lambda syntax would be far better.
reduce((a, b) => a + b, 0.0, outputData)
--
/Jacob Carlborg
