On 17/05/2011 21:44, Stewart Gordon wrote:
Features to improve the readability of code are the very definition of
syntactic sugar.
Indeed, Prolog programmers rely on syntactic sugar a lot.
Come to think of it, some of the everyday features of programming languages generally are
syntactic su
On 17/05/2011 21:50, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 17.05.2011 22:44, schrieb Stewart Gordon:
Could you be thinking of syntactic saccharin?
Sweet syntax with a disgusting bitter aftertaste? ;)
I guess that would make sense. But actually, syntactic saccharin is something that may
look at first l
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Timon Gehr wrote:
> >
> > 1. Deprecate using CommaExpression inside ParanthesizedExpression. (This
> > does not
> > affect most code that uses the comma operator!)
> > 2. Wait a few releases.
> > 3. Introduce straightforward, built-in tuples:
> [snip]
>
> We've been th
Andrei:
> One possibility that I hadn't thought before is to use ";" for
> separating tuple elements. Upon a casual inspection, it turns out no
> statement can be enclosed directly in "(" and ")" so there's no
> ambiguity. It would also take care of the issue "did you mean to pass
> them as fu
On 5/18/11 5:12 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
Timon Gehr:
Library code should make use of the language to implement its semantics.
Not the other way round.
Why?
Short story: Obvious?
Do you really want to make some non-built-in types more equal than others? Why
would you want to have a dependency
> Timon Gehr:
>
> > Library code should make use of the language to implement its semantics.
> > Not the other way round.
>
> Why?
Short story: Obvious?
Do you really want to make some non-built-in types more equal than others? Why
would you want to have a dependency cycle between std and the com
Timon Gehr:
> Library code should make use of the language to implement its semantics.
> Not the other way round.
Why?
> Another reason I dislike it: it looks different to other "tuple literals"
> that are already built-in:
>
> foo (note, how, this, is, a, tuple, "!");
Looking different from
> Timon Gehr:
>
>> Tuple literals would indeed be very nice.
>
> I have asked for tuple unpacking syntax (and other things like some support
> from
the type system). Tuple literals are less needed.
>
>> (having syntactic sugar for phobos functionality in the language
>> seems like a very bad desig
Timon Gehr:
> Tuple literals would indeed be very nice.
I have asked for tuple unpacking syntax (and other things like some support
from the type system). Tuple literals are less needed.
> (having syntactic sugar for phobos functionality in the language
> seems like a very bad design to me,
I
> Stewart Gordon:
>
> > I think D is going the right way on the whole by leaving regexps to a
> > library.
Though
> > this does limit such possibilities as optimised regexp switches.
>
> Leaving regexps to a library is an acceptable choice for D, or maybe even the
best choice. In D even associati
Am 17.05.2011 22:44, schrieb Stewart Gordon:
> On 12/05/2011 13:21, Matthew Ong wrote:
>> @dennis luehring
>
>> I do not think that this is syntactic sugar. Compare this 2 block of
>> code. Which
>> is easier to read?
>
>
> Features to improve the readability of code are the very definition of
>
On 12/05/2011 13:21, Matthew Ong wrote:
@dennis luehring
I do not think that this is syntactic sugar. Compare this 2 block of code. Which
is easier to read?
Features to improve the readability of code are the very definition of syntactic sugar.
Indeed, Prolog programmers rely on syntactic
Stewart Gordon:
> I think D is going the right way on the whole by leaving regexps to a
> library. Though
> this does limit such possibilities as optimised regexp switches.
Leaving regexps to a library is an acceptable choice for D, or maybe even the
best choice. In D even associative arrays
On 13/05/2011 06:10, KennyTM~ wrote:
On May 13, 11 12:14, Ary Manzana wrote:
I didn't use regex a lot before I started using Ruby. The thing is, in
Ruby it's so easy to use regex that I just started using them a lot more
than before. Of course, ruby has built-in operators for matching regexs,
Hi,
Seems like some people also had the same idea about D supporting more complex
switch syntax and given more interesting reasons.
Perhaps can be consider for D 3.0 or ...
I am new here, please understand, but wish to see D take off because I
do see some nice syntax in D.
On 2011-05-13 14:59, Ary Manzana wrote:
On 5/13/11 12:10 PM, KennyTM~ wrote:
On May 13, 11 12:14, Ary Manzana wrote:
On 5/12/11 6:42 PM, KennyTM~ wrote:
On May 12, 11 19:13, Matthew Ong wrote:
Hi All,
Anyway to include this cool feature of switch with D in the near
future?
Why the obsessio
On 13/05/2011 17:52, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
When you've written a couple it doesn't take much to get it right in
my experience. I don't find them hard to maintain personally, I guess
that comes from experience though. What do you mean port?
Literally code the same in another programming langua
On 13.05.2011 20:00, Robert Clipsham wrote:
On 13/05/2011 16:12, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Regex is ugly, impossible to maintain/debug and slow for anything
mildly complicated - a handwritten parser is magnitudes faster, and
easy to understand, maintain and debug. If it's simple, you may as
well w
On 13/05/2011 16:12, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
Regex is ugly, impossible to maintain/debug and slow for anything
mildly complicated - a handwritten parser is magnitudes faster, and
easy to understand, maintain and debug. If it's simple, you may as
well write a couple of extra lines and have it be a
On 13.05.2011 19:35, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 13.05.2011 19:26, KennyTM~ wrote:
On May 13, 11 23:12, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 13.05.2011 18:25, Robert Clipsham wrote:
On 13/05/2011 05:14, Ary Manzana wrote:
How about making regex a built-in feature with this syntax: /regex/ ?
I didn't us
On 13.05.2011 19:26, KennyTM~ wrote:
On May 13, 11 23:12, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 13.05.2011 18:25, Robert Clipsham wrote:
On 13/05/2011 05:14, Ary Manzana wrote:
How about making regex a built-in feature with this syntax: /regex/ ?
I didn't use regex a lot before I started using Ruby. The
On May 13, 11 23:12, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 13.05.2011 18:25, Robert Clipsham wrote:
On 13/05/2011 05:14, Ary Manzana wrote:
How about making regex a built-in feature with this syntax: /regex/ ?
I didn't use regex a lot before I started using Ruby. The thing is, in
Ruby it's so easy to use
On 13.05.2011 18:25, Robert Clipsham wrote:
On 13/05/2011 05:14, Ary Manzana wrote:
How about making regex a built-in feature with this syntax: /regex/ ?
I didn't use regex a lot before I started using Ruby. The thing is, in
Ruby it's so easy to use regex that I just started using them a lot mo
On 13/05/2011 05:14, Ary Manzana wrote:
How about making regex a built-in feature with this syntax: /regex/ ?
I didn't use regex a lot before I started using Ruby. The thing is, in
Ruby it's so easy to use regex that I just started using them a lot more
than before. Of course, ruby has built-in
On 5/13/11 12:10 PM, KennyTM~ wrote:
On May 13, 11 12:14, Ary Manzana wrote:
On 5/12/11 6:42 PM, KennyTM~ wrote:
On May 12, 11 19:13, Matthew Ong wrote:
Hi All,
Anyway to include this cool feature of switch with D in the near
future?
Why the obsession with 'switch'? 'if' works fine.
swit
On May 13, 11 12:14, Ary Manzana wrote:
On 5/12/11 6:42 PM, KennyTM~ wrote:
On May 12, 11 19:13, Matthew Ong wrote:
Hi All,
Anyway to include this cool feature of switch with D in the near future?
Why the obsession with 'switch'? 'if' works fine.
switch(str){
// regexp
case "abc", "def",
On 5/12/11 6:42 PM, KennyTM~ wrote:
On May 12, 11 19:13, Matthew Ong wrote:
Hi All,
Anyway to include this cool feature of switch with D in the near future?
Why the obsession with 'switch'? 'if' works fine.
switch(str){
// regexp
case "abc", "def", "as+b?": s1(); break;
case "za+", "wd?",
Matthew Ong:
> Anyway to include this cool feature of switch with D in the near future?
I think there are no plans in adding a switch as powerful as you ask.
The idea of adding pattern matching to D as in functional languages (as seen in
Haskell, OCaML or even Scala) was discussed, it's a nice
Am 12.05.2011 16:33, schrieb Matthew Ong:
From what I can see u did not provide any clear answer and hence,
I would only discount all your threads as hostile to someone new to
D-Programming that is asking sincere and providing some clearly supportable
features. If those feature are as what u hav
Note that it would in principle be possible to have a library-based solution
that
provides the functionality you want with the following syntax:
import rswitch; // I made that module name up.
...
mixin(rswitch(q{
switch(str){
case "abc", "def", "as+b?":
if( str == || str == && etc
On 2011-05-12 07:13:59 -0400, Matthew Ong said:
Anyway to include this cool feature of switch with D in the near future?
switch(str){
// regexp
case "abc", "def", "as+b?": s1(); break;
case "za+", "wd?", "aaa": s2(); break;
default: s3();
}
The idea is nice. But it break
Hi,
The over all process perhaps is wrong,
I would use a more mature enviroment with huge sets or code sample to
build some commonly used routine for myself. And later export them
into various different language using process like this.
http://xes.sourceforge.net/
The library that I shown so far
On 5/12/11 6:13 AM, Matthew Ong wrote:
Hi All,
Anyway to include this cool feature of switch with D in the near future?
switch(str){
// regexp
case "abc", "def", "as+b?": s1(); break;
case "za+", "wd?", "aaa": s2(); break;
default: s3();
}
This is a nice feature, but pro
Hi Dennis,
>From what I can see u did not provide any clear answer and hence,
I would only discount all your threads as hostile to someone new to
D-Programming that is asking sincere and providing some clearly supportable
features. If those feature are as what u have rapidly
shot down. Then, may I
On May 12, 11 20:04, matthew ong wrote:
Hi KennyTM~,
Some of the valid reason:
1) Less key stroke
Invalid,
switch (x = f()) {
case x < 0: return -x
default: return x
}
50 significant characters
auto x = f();
if (x < 0) return -x;
else return x;
41 significant characters
2) Easi
Matthew Ong wrote:
> == Quote from dennis luehring (dl.so...@gmx.net)'s article
> > Am 12.05.2011 14:58, schrieb Matthew Ong:
>
> > did you see the string mixin feature before?
> > http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/mixin.html
> > no outer (parsing) generator needed anymore (with small exceptions) :)
Am 12.05.2011 15:57, schrieb Matthew Ong:
== Quote from dennis luehring (dl.so...@gmx.net)'s article
Am 12.05.2011 14:58, schrieb Matthew Ong:
did you see the string mixin feature before?
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/mixin.html
no outer (parsing) generator needed anymore (with small e
== Quote from dennis luehring (dl.so...@gmx.net)'s article
> Am 12.05.2011 14:58, schrieb Matthew Ong:
> did you see the string mixin feature before?
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/mixin.html
> no outer (parsing) generator needed anymore (with small exceptions) :)
I fail to see what is being
Am 12.05.2011 14:58, schrieb Matthew Ong:
Denise, please note that I did not say it could not be done with if-else chain,
that is clear
but switch makes some logical writing easier
in simple/trivial cases, and when i becomes more complex
you switch back to inner case ifs
> and code generat
@dennis luehring
--
if (match(str, regex("abc|def|as+b?") && BLUB || BLA ... )
{
s1();
}else if (match(str, regex("za+|wd?|aaa")){
...
--
switch(str){
Am 12.05.2011 14:21, schrieb Matthew Ong:
@dennis luehring
if (match(str, regex("abc|def|as+b?")) {
s1();
}else if (match(str, regex("za+|wd?|aaa")){ // a lot of () and | ... might have
missed out one of them
s2();
}else{
@dennis luehring
>just a question - did you thought about that longer then 1 minute?
>what real problem does this syntactic sugare solves?
I do not think that this is syntactic sugar. Compare this 2 block of code. Which
is easier to read? I am not asking the level to be at bash
shell script, (tha
Sample Code of Bash left out in previous post.
--
case $space in
[1-6]*) // <<< That if some sort of such logic can be supported in D.
Message="All is quiet."
;;
[7-8]*)
Message="Start thinking about cleaning out some stuff
Hi KennyTM~,
Some of the valid reason:
1) Less key stroke
2) Easier code generator to implement
3) Better to read.
4) less worries about braket '{'.
5)
In Java, C++ we avoided using switch because it ONLY support const & literal
type.
Most script base language supports things like this. I
Am 12.05.2011 13:13, schrieb Matthew Ong:
Hi All,
just a question - did you thought about that longer then 1 minute?
what real problem does this syntactic sugare solves?
On May 12, 11 19:13, Matthew Ong wrote:
Hi All,
Anyway to include this cool feature of switch with D in the near future?
Why the obsession with 'switch'? 'if' works fine.
switch(str){
// regexp
case "abc", "def", "as+b?": s1(); break;
case "za+", "wd?", "aaa": s2(); bre
Hi All,
Anyway to include this cool feature of switch with D in the near future?
switch(str){
// regexp
case "abc", "def", "as+b?": s1(); break;
case "za+", "wd?", "aaa": s2(); break;
default: s3();
}
switch (tag) {
default: s3()
case 0, 1, 2, 3: s1()
case 4, 5, 6, 7: s2()
}
47 matches
Mail list logo
