On Friday, 26 April 2013 at 08:13:48 UTC, renoX wrote:
I consider 'sort!("a > b")(array);' to be **too terse**: there
is nothing here telling the reader what a and b are supposed to
be.
Sure there is - it's called "convention". Since all the functions
in `std.algorithm` that accept delegates
Are you really saying that 'sort!((a, b) => a > b)(array);' is
too verbose??
I consider 'sort!("a > b")(array);' to be **too terse**: there is
nothing here telling the reader what a and b are supposed to be.
BR,
renoX
On Wednesday, 24 April 2013 at 23:42:57 UTC, Idan Arye wrote:
Token strings solve all the problems the OP mentioned, but they
do not solve the one problem he didn't mention - closures:
int[] array = [3, 1, 5, 2, 7];
int x = 4;
writeln(array.filter!(a => a < x)()); // works as expect
On Wednesday, 24 April 2013 at 23:04:02 UTC, ixid wrote:
Is changing the language the right approach to this or would
smarter IDEs possibly be a better direction?
A smarter IDE always helps :-)
It might not be worth changing the language for this (or it
might), but changing the language to ha
On Wednesday, 24 April 2013 at 17:38:34 UTC, Tove wrote:
On Wednesday, 24 April 2013 at 02:18:07 UTC, Luís Marques wrote:
Consider:
sort!("a > b")(array);
how about?
sort!(q{a > b})(array);
http://dlang.org/lex.html#TokenString
Token strings solve all the problems the OP mentioned, but
Consider:
sort!("a > b")(array);
This is almost perfect, except for "a > b" being a string
instead of "real" code. If "a > b" was an actual block of code
it could be syntax highlighted by the editor, directly grammar
checked by compiler, etc.
Is changing the language the right approach
On Wednesday, 24 April 2013 at 20:32:16 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
Then when you call that:
f(a < b)
This is a little dangerous as it looks like an ordinary
expression but has to somehow affect symbol scoping.
That's true, and that was one reason I suggested some kind of
template mixin literal. O
On 04/24/2013 11:03 PM, Diggory wrote:
On Wednesday, 24 April 2013 at 20:32:16 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 04/24/2013 07:07 PM, Diggory wrote:
One way this could be done is by expanding on lazy parameters. Perhaps
you could specify parameters for a lazy argument, so instead of always
getting a de
On Wednesday, 24 April 2013 at 20:32:16 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 04/24/2013 07:07 PM, Diggory wrote:
One way this could be done is by expanding on lazy parameters.
Perhaps
you could specify parameters for a lazy argument, so instead
of always
getting a delegate of type T delegate(), you could
On Wednesday, 24 April 2013 at 20:50:31 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Today we usually write it this way:
array.sort!q{ a > b };
Thanks. (I just copied it from the docs)
Tove:
how about?
sort!(q{a > b})(array);
Today we usually write it this way:
array.sort!q{ a > b };
Bye,
bearophile
On 04/24/2013 07:07 PM, Diggory wrote:
One way this could be done is by expanding on lazy parameters. Perhaps
you could specify parameters for a lazy argument, so instead of always
getting a delegate of type T delegate(), you could get one of type T
delegate(U a, V b).
For example, a parameter c
On Wednesday, 24 April 2013 at 02:18:07 UTC, Luís Marques wrote:
Consider:
sort!("a > b")(array);
how about?
sort!(q{a > b})(array);
http://dlang.org/lex.html#TokenString
One way this could be done is by expanding on lazy parameters.
Perhaps you could specify parameters for a lazy argument, so
instead of always getting a delegate of type T delegate(), you
could get one of type T delegate(U a, V b).
For example, a parameter could be:
void f(lazy bool exp(int a,
14 matches
Mail list logo
