Thoughts on improving operators

2011-10-05 Thread Gor Gyolchanyan
I agree. But there's something that can be done to help make the operators even more usable. Example: named foreach loops over objects: struct TestStruct { public: this(string text) { _text = text.dup; } int opApply(string name : "text")(int delegate(ref dchar) dg) { int resul

Re: Thoughts on improving operators

2011-10-05 Thread Vladimir Panteleev
On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 13:26:26 +0300, Gor Gyolchanyan wrote: Example: named foreach loops over objects: You can achieve almost exactly this by iterating over a delegate (define a method with the same signature as opApply). The only change at the call site is that instead of "foreach(ref c

Re: Thoughts on improving operators

2011-10-05 Thread Gor Gyolchanyan
I didn't know that was possible! Thanks! But the case with the ternary operator is the most interesting one. On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote: > On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 13:26:26 +0300, Gor Gyolchanyan > wrote: > >> Example: named foreach loops over objects: > > You can achiev

Re: Thoughts on improving operators

2011-10-05 Thread Christophe
Gor Gyolchanyan , dans le message (digitalmars.D:146100), a écrit : > I agree. But there's something that can be done to help make the > operators even more usable. > Example: named foreach loops over objects: > > struct TestStruct > { > public: > this(string text) { _text = text.dup; } > >

Re: Thoughts on improving operators

2011-10-05 Thread Gor Gyolchanyan
The whole point was to put the question mark to a better use. I mean, it's used in the ternary operator exclusively. It's such a waste of a token. The question mark logically belongs to bools (which goes good with the ternary operator), but the bools are much more ofter worked with in the form of p

Re: Thoughts on improving operators

2011-10-05 Thread kennytm
Gor Gyolchanyan wrote: > The whole point was to put the question mark to a better use. > I mean, it's used in the ternary operator exclusively. > It's such a waste of a token. > The question mark logically belongs to bools (which goes good with the > ternary operator), but the bools are much more

Re: Thoughts on improving operators

2011-10-06 Thread Gor Gyolchanyan
I never wanted it to be a part of an identifier. I wanted it to be an overloadable operator. '-' already is an overloadable operator, so it can be put to many uses. '#' is, as i know, used in the shebang and the line specifier. I don't know if it will be unambiguous to use it as an operator. On Th