On 9/24/12 11:47 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:29:53 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
On 9/24/12 11:23 AM, Eldar Insafutdinov wrote:
On Monday, 24 September 2012 at 14:52:21 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
Without any research or investigation, what about using a different
set of delimiters for tuples? Like {1,2,3}
.... and exactly the syntax I was going to propose!
Assume you had this syntax working today. So instead of writing
"tuple(a. b. c)" you write "{ a, b, c }". To what extent would your
code be better? (Honest question. Don't forget that adding the =>
syntax for lambda /did/ make for better code.)
I can't honestly say I've used either tuple(a, b, c), or tuples in other
languages very much.
I can say that I have *avoided* tuples as return values because I don't
want to type Tuple!(x, y) as the return type. But I haven't come across
that need very much. You can say "yeah, but what about auto?" Cases I'm
referring to were to make interface declarations -- can't use auto.
Yah, after writing DIP19 I was like, "creating tuples is nice and easy,
but expressing function returns is less so". Besides, the comma operator
does not hurt the syntax for types all that much.
I just wanted to point out that it seems the largest trouble,
implementation-wise, for DIP19 is the choice of parentheses to denote a
tuple. If we do want to add built-in tuples, maybe we should be looking
at a different delimiter.
Indeed. The question is what mileage we get out of it.
Andrei
