== Quote from Walter Bright (newshou...@digitalmars.com)'s article
> On 8/15/2011 12:19 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> > Can't we always automatically return the last expression, even if it ends
> > with a
> > semicolon?
> It interferes with auto return typing (such as void returns).
Ignoring unin
On 2011-08-15 22:06, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/15/2011 12:19 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Can't we always automatically return the last expression, even if it
ends with a
semicolon?
It interferes with auto return typing (such as void returns).
Don't know if this apply in this case but couldn't
On 2011-08-15 22:57, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 8/15/11 2:19 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-08-15 21:00, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/15/2011 3:54 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
'When the last ExpressionStatement in a function body is missing the
';', it is
implicitly returned.'
This has been prop
On 2011-08-15 22:06, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/15/2011 12:19 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Can't we always automatically return the last expression, even if it
ends with a
semicolon?
It interferes with auto return typing (such as void returns).
You mean that instead of void it would return somet
On 8/15/2011 2:00 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
It would be a big problem with regard to functions in general IMHO, but how do
struct destructors and overloading apply to lambdas? It at least _seems_ like
it would be possible to make it so that single-statement lambdas which have no
return or ; but
On 08/15/2011 11:15 PM, Andrew Wiley wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
mailto:seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org>>
wrote:
On 8/15/11 2:19 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-08-15 21:00, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/15/2011 3:54 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu <
seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
> On 8/15/11 2:19 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>
>> On 2011-08-15 21:00, Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/15/2011 3:54 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>>
'When the last ExpressionStatement in a function body is m
Steven Schveighoffer:
> What is going to happen if someone adds an extra ';' ? Compiler error
> ("no return statement")
A specific syntax, usable just for delegates that are not void seems to solve
some problems:
{ a => a * foo(a) } // OK
{ a, b => a * b } // OK
{ int a, int b => a * b } //
On Monday, August 15, 2011 13:31 Walter Bright wrote:
> On 8/15/2011 1:13 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 16:05:31 -0400, Walter Bright
> >
> >
> > wrote:
> >> On 8/15/2011 12:17 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> >>> What is going to happen if someone adds an extra ';' ? C
On 8/15/11 2:19 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-08-15 21:00, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/15/2011 3:54 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
'When the last ExpressionStatement in a function body is missing the
';', it is
implicitly returned.'
This has been proposed several times before, it was also proposed f
On 8/15/2011 1:13 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 16:05:31 -0400, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 8/15/2011 12:17 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
What is going to happen if someone adds an extra ';' ? Compiler error ("no
return statement")
Such lambdas are often used with 'auto'
On 8/15/11 10:05 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/15/2011 12:17 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
What is going to happen if someone adds an extra ';' ? Compiler error
("no
return statement")
Such lambdas are often used with 'auto' returns, so you'd get no
compiler error, but a subtle in the way yo
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 16:05:31 -0400, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 8/15/2011 12:17 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
What is going to happen if someone adds an extra ';' ? Compiler error
("no
return statement")
Such lambdas are often used with 'auto' returns, so you'd get no
compiler error, but
On 8/15/2011 12:19 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
Can't we always automatically return the last expression, even if it ends with a
semicolon?
It interferes with auto return typing (such as void returns).
On 8/15/2011 12:17 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
What is going to happen if someone adds an extra ';' ? Compiler error ("no
return statement")
Such lambdas are often used with 'auto' returns, so you'd get no compiler error,
but a subtle in the way your program works.
On 2011-08-15 21:17, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:00:03 -0400, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 8/15/2011 3:54 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
'When the last ExpressionStatement in a function body is missing the
';', it is
implicitly returned.'
This has been proposed several times before
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:00:03 -0400, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 8/15/2011 3:54 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
'When the last ExpressionStatement in a function body is missing the
';', it is
implicitly returned.'
This has been proposed several times before, it was also proposed for
C++0x. The diffic
On 2011-08-15 21:00, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/15/2011 3:54 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
'When the last ExpressionStatement in a function body is missing the
';', it is
implicitly returned.'
This has been proposed several times before, it was also proposed for
C++0x. The difficulty is it makes having
On 8/15/11, Walter Bright wrote:
>
> for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++);
>... do this ...
>
> which has cost at least one expert developer I know an entire afternoon
> staring
> at it convinced there was a compiler bug because his loop executed only
> once.
>
> (And this is why D disallows t
On 8/15/2011 3:54 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
'When the last ExpressionStatement in a function body is missing the ';', it is
implicitly returned.'
This has been proposed several times before, it was also proposed for C++0x. The
difficulty is it makes having a ; or not substantially alter the semant
On 2011-08-15 17:04, Mafi wrote:
Am 15.08.2011 16:01, schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
Yes, please. In fact I would like that the last expression in all
functions and delegates to be automatically returned.
When we're talking about improving the delegate syntax I would like to
have these two syntaxes fo
On 8/15/11 7:53 PM, bearophile wrote:
Timon Gehr:
map!((a){a*foo(a)})(arr);
You have picked a suboptimal example, because D/Phobos already allows you write
this (because the delegate uses only global names beside its arguments):
map!q{ a * foo(a) }(arr);
No! As long as foo() is not in the
Timon Gehr:
> 'When the last ExpressionStatement in a function body is missing the
> ';', it is implicitly returned.'
I remember others in past suggest the same idea. This is a good sign because it
means it's a natural enough syntax for D programmers.
> map!((a){a*foo(a)})(arr);
You have pic
Am 15.08.2011 16:01, schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
On 2011-08-15 12:54, Timon Gehr wrote:
Currently, when using delegates in D, there is 'return' all over the
place.
Eg:
map!((a){return a*foo(a);})(arr);
Many delegates consist of only one return statement. Writing 'return' is
rather inconvenient and
On 8/15/2011 3:54 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
Currently, when using delegates in D, there is 'return' all over the
place.
Eg:
map!((a){return a*foo(a);})(arr);
Many delegates consist of only one return statement. Writing 'return'
is rather inconvenient and adds to the general noise
This is precise
On 2011-08-15 12:54, Timon Gehr wrote:
Currently, when using delegates in D, there is 'return' all over the place.
Eg:
map!((a){return a*foo(a);})(arr);
Many delegates consist of only one return statement. Writing 'return' is
rather inconvenient and adds to the general noise.
Now, I would like
On 15.08.2011 12:54, Timon Gehr wrote:
Currently, when using delegates in D, there is 'return' all over the place.
Eg:
map!((a){return a*foo(a);})(arr);
Many delegates consist of only one return statement. Writing 'return' is
rather inconvenient and adds to the general noise.
Now, I would like
Currently, when using delegates in D, there is 'return' all over the place.
Eg:
map!((a){return a*foo(a);})(arr);
Many delegates consist of only one return statement. Writing 'return' is
rather inconvenient and adds to the general noise.
Now, I would like to propose to enhance the language in
28 matches
Mail list logo
