Timon Gehr:
> => expr
>
> should imo be a shorthand for
>
> () => expr.
>
> It saves some ((())(()))().
It saves few (), but zero argument lambdas aren't that common in my
functional-style code, and I think it decreases syntax uniformity and code
readability. So I think it's a bad idea.
On the other hand I think extending the applicability of this syntax to free
functions/methods (as in Scala and Ada2012) is a nice idea, to shorten tiny
functions/methods, that are common enough:
class C {
private int x;
int getX() => x;
}
------------------------
Walter:
>They expect to see it, or else they mark D as "not having lambdas" and "not
>supporting functional programming".<
To me this sounds like a bit silly argument to base language design on.
In my opinion the most important reason for the introduction of this anonymous
function syntax is that it makes D functional-style code (and generally code
that uses lot of callbacks) less noisy, so it makes it more easy to write and
read.
Bye,
bearophile
