On Thursday, 31 May 2012 at 09:58:42 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012 11:36:47 +0200, Sandeep Datta
<datta.sand...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I was going through some sample code online and came across
the following code fragment...
listenHttp(settings, &handleRequest); //Where handleRequest
is a function
My question to you is (as the title says) is the address-of
operator (&) really needed here? Wouldn't it be better to
consider handleRequest to be a reference to the actual
function? I think this will make the system consistent with
the way variables work in D. IMO this will bring
functions/delegates closer to being first class objects in D.
What do you think?
It might be because of historical reasons.
A long time ago, D allowed calling functions without (), so
what if handleRequest returns a function?
Should the passed reference be handleRequest or handleRequest()?
This issue is still valid for properties as they can be called
without ().
Thanks for the information! But I think we should use real
properties when we need to do that and stop using functions as
improvised properties. Please see my response to Dejan Lekic for
my argument supporting this claim.
