On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 21:16:37 +0200, bearophile <bearophileh...@lycos.com>
wrote:
Simen Kjaeraas:
I feel it is too much a departure from the style otherwise present in D.
This is why I have shown my original syntax with [foreach() if()].
It is important not only that the syntax is good in and of itself,
but also in the context of D.
The syntax you have shown is noisy and hard to read.
Array/seq comps are all (or most) a matter of syntax sugar. So if their
syntax is bad, they miss their main point by a mile.
And this is where we disagree. I think the syntax is pretty good, and that
the
pythonesque syntax sticks out like a sore thumb. Instead of conflating the
concepts of filter, map and source data, I aimed for a solution that is
familiar
to those accustomed to D, with clear distinctions and the benefits that
brings.
My design is meant to be somewhat similar to for-loops, with the
semicolon-separated expressions, and to set builder notation. I kinda wish
'in'
was used in foreach loops (foreach(x in foo){}), as that would be a
perfect fit
for the <= in the proposed syntax:
My notation:
[2 * x; x in iota(10); x*x > 4]
Set builder notation:
{2 · x | x ∈ ℕ, x² > 4}
Personally, I find set builder notation to be very clear and
understandable, and
thus worth striving to imitate. In D however, the curly brackets and comma
operator already have other meanings that we should try not to interfere
with.
--
Simen
