On 07/19/2012 04:39 PM, Petr Janda wrote:
On Thursday, 19 July 2012 at 14:31:53 UTC, trav...@phare.normalesup.org
(Christophe Travert) wrote:
"q66" , dans le message (digitalmars.D:172716), a écrit :
(so instead of calling a(b(c(d(e(f))))) you can just call a.b.c.d.e.f())
rather f.e.d.c.b.a, if you omit the empty parenthesis after each letter
(but f).
Ok, but the empty parenthesis is is important,
It is not.
it tells you about whether it's a an object or a function.
(No, it does not. And even if it would, )
There is usually nothing that makes this distinction terribly
important.
Furthermore, to learn the meaning of a symbol, being able to look at its
documentation or declaration is fully sufficient / required.
It's another thing I hate about Ruby is that a parenthesis enforcement
is weak.
I take that to mean you dislike ruby's function call syntax. That is a
very poor thing to dislike, there is no objective justification for it.
