spir:
> But I guess optionality could, and should, extend to non-ref types; thus, null
> is just a particular case of non-existence. And this would apply especially on
> function parameters:
> void f (int i?) {...}
>From C# experience it seems non-ref nullable types are not so useful (and it's
>not hard to implement them with the language itself).
> Also, they should reuse '?' to mean 'exists', possibly '!?' meaning the
> opposite:
> void f (int i?) {
> if (? i) doWithI(i);
> if (!? i) doWithoutI();
> ...
> }
Better to keep the language less perlish.
> great! get rid of new in D as well
This was discussed a lot. I don't have much interest in this change.
>> We may define a class method "by reference":
>>
>> void hello(String name) = hello;
>
> ???
The second hello is a function reference. Nothing so interesting to see here.
> I don't get the diff between currying & partial app.
Take a look at the wikipedia pages, the difference is small, they are quite
related things, their difference is no so important:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currying
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_application
> And find this feature much complication for close to uselessness.
In functional-style programming it's useful to be able to curry (or partially
applicate) functions, it helps keep the code shorter and less noisy.
> examples?
See the first PDF at those pages. In the meantime people have mirrored those
PDFs, see the Reddit thread.
> Yo; and while you're at "typestating", extend the feature to any type (not
> only
> pointers).
For this you may need to look for a language (Rust) designed for the ground up
for this feature.
Bye,
bearophile
