On Sunday, 18 January 2015 at 18:16:47 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
Unfortunately, this would break existing code:
if(some_condition)
while(some_other_condition) {
// ...
}
else
// ...
Currently, the `else` branch belongs to the `if`; with your
proposal,
On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 23:20:43 +
Jens Bauer via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> -A rejection will not stop me from making another proposal,
> though - in fact, I do have one more. ;)
sure, you're welcome! this one is not so good, but another one may be
brilliant. and even if it will not be so brilliant
On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 23:16:11 +
Jens Bauer via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> I'd like to give an example on a different use of the same
> feature:
>
> while(length--)
> {
> *d++ = *s++;
> }
> if(length == -1) /* the programmer will need to know the value
> of length here. */
> {
> /* ha
; if so, get the entire
token, otherwise let us know that it's something unknown (but
only if we're debugging).
Alright I see the purpose about: "while(){}else(){}", but
unfortunately D doesn't have this.
Anyway looking at your first post, I'd like to sugge
On Sunday, 18 January 2015 at 23:06:27 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
it will introduce a new keyword, and it will break any code
which using
"otherwise" as identifier. as far as i can tell this
(introducing new
keyword) is one of the hardest thing to do, 'cause Walter will
reject
it wit
I'd like to give an example on a different use of the same
feature:
while(length--)
{
*d++ = *s++;
}
if(length == -1) /* the programmer will need to know the value
of length here. */
{
/* handle case where length was exactly 0, it's now -1 */
}
would become:
while(length--)
{
*d
On Sun, 18 Jan 2015 22:56:23 +
Jens Bauer via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Sunday, 18 January 2015 at 18:16:47 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
> > Unfortunately, this would break existing code:
>
> That is absolutely correct. Good catch. I did not think of that
> particular case.
>
> However... What
"Jens Bauer" wrote:
> On Sunday, 18 January 2015 at 18:16:47 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
>> Unfortunately, this would break existing code:
>
> That is absolutely correct. Good catch. I did not think of that particular
> case.
>
> However... What if the 'else', which "belongs" to while, is named
> d
On Sunday, 18 January 2015 at 18:16:47 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
Unfortunately, this would break existing code:
That is absolutely correct. Good catch. I did not think of that
particular case.
However... What if the 'else', which "belongs" to while, is named
differently, for instance ...
wh
On Sunday, 18 January 2015 at 16:03:24 UTC, MattCoder wrote:
On Sunday, 18 January 2015 at 15:52:24 UTC, Jens Bauer wrote:
Maybe I misunderstood your question, but what you think about
this way:
... It's close, but the result would be different.
The while is a combined if+while, where the fi
Unfortunately, this would break existing code:
if(some_condition)
while(some_other_condition) {
// ...
}
else
// ...
Currently, the `else` branch belongs to the `if`; with your
proposal, it would belong to the `while`.
An `else` always attaches to t
On Sunday, 18 January 2015 at 15:52:24 UTC, Jens Bauer wrote:
... Ah, much more readable.
Maybe I misunderstood your question, but what you think about
this way:
while(1){
if(c >= '0' && c <= '9')
{
/* number */
c = *s++;
... do something with c ...
}
I've sometimes wished for a while ... else combination in C.
-But I never got around to proposing my suggestion to whoever or
whatever committee is in charge of the C language.
But since D is a language that has much more freedom regarding
implementation, I'd like to sugge
13 matches
Mail list logo
