Hey all,
I wanted to relive the discussion on named arguments and ping for
its current status.
There is a bunch of examples to show how needed a unified
solution for this problem is, let me give you one from phobos [2].
```
// I want to allow downsizing
iota(10).sliced!(Yes.replaceArrayWith
On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 17:35:38 +, Seb wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I wanted to relive the discussion on named arguments and ping for its
> current status.
We want something to let people provide arguments sparsely and
unambiguously, and if possible in arbitrary order. The existing DIP just
lets you
On 2016-03-06 18:35, Seb wrote:
Hey all,
I wanted to relive the discussion on named arguments and ping for its
current status.
There is a bunch of examples to show how needed a unified solution for
this problem is, let me give you one from phobos [2].
```
// I want to allow downsizing
iota(10)
On Sunday, 6 March 2016 at 20:35:49 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2016-03-06 18:35, Seb wrote:
Hey all,
I wanted to relive the discussion on named arguments and ping
for its
current status.
There is a bunch of examples to show how needed a unified
solution for
this problem is, let me give
On Sunday, 6 March 2016 at 19:10:50 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 17:35:38 +, Seb wrote:
[...]
We want something to let people provide arguments sparsely and
unambiguously, and if possible in arbitrary order. The existing
DIP just lets you provide compiler-checked annotat
On Monday, 7 March 2016 at 10:40:15 UTC, ZombineDev wrote:
Which I don't think will cause ambiguity with delegates:
auto tuple3 = { getInt() }; tuple
auto tuple3 = { getInt(); }; lambda
Unfortunately this will not work. There was a tuple proposal
sometime back in 2012 or 2013. I can't remember
On Mon, 07 Mar 2016 11:06:13 +, ZombineDev wrote:
> The compiler should detect that this call is ambiguous and would not
> allow it.
It's a potentially significant amount of work to determine that the
expression is ambiguous, or to disambiguate.
> To resolve the ambiguity, the user can write
On Monday, 7 March 2016 at 18:21:24 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Monday, 7 March 2016 at 10:40:15 UTC, ZombineDev wrote:
Which I don't think will cause ambiguity with delegates:
auto tuple3 = { getInt() }; tuple
auto tuple3 = { getInt(); }; lambda
Unfortunately this will not work. There was a tuple pro
On Sunday, 6 March 2016 at 17:35:38 UTC, Seb wrote:
Hey all,
I wanted to relive the discussion on named arguments and ping
for its current status.
There is a bunch of examples to show how needed a unified
solution for this problem is, let me give you one from phobos
[2].
```
// I want to
hi, has the UDA syntax been proposed already?
void fun(int foo, int bar, int bazDaz = 0){}
fun(10, 30, 50); // normal
fun(10, 30); normal with default
fun(10, 30, @bazDaz 50); // mixed
fun(@bazDaz 50, 10, 30) // mixed and reordered
fun(@bar 30, 10); // mixed, reordered and default
fun(@foo 10,
On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 13:52:09 +, Martin Tschierschke wrote:
> What about this idea? A new word "as" or something similar.
> fun(ypos as y, xpos as x, radius as r); // different order!
The syntax isn't an issue.
There was one DIP about named parameters, but it was unpopular. It didn't
change *
On Sunday, 6 March 2016 at 17:35:38 UTC, Seb wrote:
Hey all,
I wanted to relive the discussion on named arguments and ping
for its current status.
There is a bunch of examples to show how needed a unified
solution for this problem is, let me give you one from phobos
[2].
```
// I want to
On Sunday, 6 March 2016 at 17:35:38 UTC, Seb wrote:
Hey all,
Using structs is not ideal, because one can't require
parameters, but this can be solved by having those parameters
as normal ones like `sliced(4, {allowDownsize: true})` and it
creates some maybe unnecessary overhead.
However it i
On Wednesday, 9 March 2016 at 07:30:31 UTC, Edwin van Leeuwen
wrote:
I also added a merge function that will return a tuple
containing merged named tuples:
Tuple!(double,"x",string,"colour")(-1,
"black").merge(Tuple!(double,"x")(0.0))
returns:
Tuple!(double,"x",string,"colour")(0, "black");
On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 18:46:02 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 13:52:09 +, Martin Tschierschke wrote:
What about this idea? A new word "as" or something similar.
fun(ypos as y, xpos as x, radius as r); // different order!
The syntax isn't an issue.
There was one DIP abo
On Wednesday, 9 March 2016 at 10:06:25 UTC, Martin Tschierschke
wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 18:46:02 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 13:52:09 +, Martin Tschierschke wrote:
What about this idea? A new word "as" or something similar.
fun(ypos as y, xpos as x, radius as r);
On Wednesday, 9 March 2016 at 12:55:16 UTC, Idan Arye wrote:
[...]
An other point on my wish list would be to allow string symbol
notation
like in ruby. Than using hashes (AA) for parameters gets more
convenient:
:symbol <= just short for => "symbol"
h[:y]= 50; h[:x] = 100; // <=> h["y"] = 50
On Wednesday, 9 March 2016 at 13:39:57 UTC, Martin Tschierschke
wrote:
On Wednesday, 9 March 2016 at 12:55:16 UTC, Idan Arye wrote:
[...]
[...]
[...]
Thats true.
[...]
Yes.Ok.
What I like about the :symbol notation is, that a string witch
is used
only to distinguish between different obj
On Wednesday, 9 March 2016 at 07:30:31 UTC, Edwin van Leeuwen
wrote:
On Sunday, 6 March 2016 at 17:35:38 UTC, Seb wrote:
[...]
In ggplotd I often use named tuples as and "anonymoous" struct:
Tuple!(double,"x")( 0.0 )
I also added a merge function that will return a tuple
containing merged na
On Wednesday, 9 March 2016 at 12:55:16 UTC, Idan Arye wrote:
Allowing something like `auto params = [:y : 50, :x : 100]`
won't really solve anything. It works nicely in Ruby, because
Ruby has dynamic typing and with some syntactic sugar you get
elegant syntax for dynamic structs. But in a struc
On Thursday, 10 March 2016 at 05:17:03 UTC, Michael Coulombe
wrote:
[...]
Whoops, forgot this:
private immutable struct KeyWordDollar {
@property
auto opDispatch(string param, T)(T t) {
return Named!(param,T)(t);
}
}
On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 20:32:02 UTC, Idan Arye wrote:
Declaring the named arguments variadically will be done by
adding `...` after a struct argument:
struct Options{int x; int y=1; int z=2;}
auto fun(Options options ...)
We'll need a syntax for specifying the arguments - but that
On Monday, 7 March 2016 at 19:06:54 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2016 11:06:13 +, ZombineDev wrote:
The compiler should detect that this call is ambiguous and
would not allow it.
It's a potentially significant amount of work to determine that
the expression is ambiguous, or to
On Monday, 7 March 2016 at 18:21:24 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Monday, 7 March 2016 at 10:40:15 UTC, ZombineDev wrote:
Which I don't think will cause ambiguity with delegates:
auto tuple3 = { getInt() }; tuple
auto tuple3 = { getInt(); }; lambda
Unfortunately this will not work. There was a tuple pro
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:01:53 +, ZombineDev wrote:
> On Monday, 7 March 2016 at 19:06:54 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2016 11:06:13 +, ZombineDev wrote:
>>> The compiler should detect that this call is ambiguous and would not
>>> allow it.
>>
>> It's a potentially significant
On Friday, 11 March 2016 at 05:09:44 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:01:53 +, ZombineDev wrote:
On Monday, 7 March 2016 at 19:06:54 UTC, Chris Wright wrote:
On Mon, 07 Mar 2016 11:06:13 +, ZombineDev wrote:
The compiler should detect that this call is ambiguous and
wou
On Thursday, 10 March 2016 at 19:36:05 UTC, ZombineDev wrote:
On Monday, 7 March 2016 at 18:21:24 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Monday, 7 March 2016 at 10:40:15 UTC, ZombineDev wrote:
Which I don't think will cause ambiguity with delegates:
auto tuple3 = { getInt() }; tuple
auto tuple3 = { getInt(); }; l
On Friday, 11 March 2016 at 13:26:49 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Thursday, 10 March 2016 at 19:36:05 UTC, ZombineDev wrote:
On Monday, 7 March 2016 at 18:21:24 UTC, Meta wrote:
Unfortunately this will not work. There was a tuple proposal
sometime back in 2012 or 2013. I can't remember the exact
reason
On Friday, 11 March 2016 at 13:26:49 UTC, Meta wrote:
On Thursday, 10 March 2016 at 19:36:05 UTC, ZombineDev wrote:
On Monday, 7 March 2016 at 18:21:24 UTC, Meta wrote:
[...]
Can you find the exact case? I'm really interested in getting
proper tuple syntax support and I think that's importan
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 14:29:39 +, Marc Schütz wrote:
>> 0 "Inside tuple literal, ; never appears."
>> {{;}} // a tuple not matching your specification
>> {{if(foo()){}}} // a non-tuple matching your specification
>
> This is not a serious problem, because it just means that the DIP
30 matches
Mail list logo
