https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7176
--- Comment #24 from Mathias LANG ---
*** Issue 12288 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
--
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7176
Max Samukha changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||maxsamu...@gmail.com
--- Comment #23 from Max S
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7176
Dlang Bot changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7176
Dlang Bot changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||pull
--- Comment #21 from Dlang Bot ---
@adamdru
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7176
--- Comment #20 from Nick Treleaven ---
Just noticed C# 6.0 has this syntax, they call it "Expression Body
Definitions":
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173114.aspx#Anchor_6
C# also has the same (x, y) => x == y lambda syntax as D. C# havi
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7176
--- Comment #19 from Ketmar Dark ---
Created attachment 1499
--> https://issues.dlang.org/attachment.cgi?id=1499&action=edit
working PoC with samples
--
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7176
--- Comment #18 from timon.g...@gmx.ch 2013-03-20 13:33:49 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> I don't like this feature. Because:
>
> 1. it would reduce code readability.
>
On the contrary! It also increases language consistency.
>class
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7176
--- Comment #17 from Kenji Hara 2013-03-20 08:21:44 PDT
---
I don't like this feature. Because:
1. it would reduce code readability.
class LibClass {
int foo() { return 1; }
string bar() => "hi";
}
Mixing lambda syntax an
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7176
Nick Treleaven changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ntrel-pub...@yahoo.co.uk
--- Comment
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7176
--- Comment #15 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2013-03-20 06:13:22 PDT ---
After having used Scala a little, I now have changed my mind a little again.
In Scala you write:
def f3(x: Int, y: Int): Int = if (x == 0) x else x * y
This is current v
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7176
--- Comment #14 from Jacob Carlborg 2012-07-20 10:22:44 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Yes, or, quite often I want to write a trivial getter but a nontrivial setter.
> So I'd like just the getter for free. Also, when the interface is goin
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7176
--- Comment #13 from Jonathan M Davis 2012-07-20 10:06:53
PDT ---
> Yes, or, quite often I want to write a trivial getter but a nontrivial setter.
> So I'd like just the getter for free. Also, when the interface is going to be
> exported, even
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7176
--- Comment #12 from David Piepgrass 2012-07-20 08:59:15
PDT ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > Why not just make bar_ public? You do not add any code to the getter nor to
> > the
> > setter anyway.
>
> Perhaps I w
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7176
--- Comment #11 from Jacob Carlborg 2012-07-20 07:06:34 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> Why not just make bar_ public? You do not add any code to the getter nor to
> the
> setter anyway.
Perhaps I want it to be virtual, to be able to ove
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7176
Artem Borisovskiy changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||kolo...@bk.ru
--- Comment #10 from
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7176
--- Comment #9 from Jacob Carlborg 2012-07-18 23:20:18 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> On the other hand, a lot of the small functions I write are boilerplate such
> as
> property getters and forwarding functions in decorators, so maybe in
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7176
David Piepgrass changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||qwertie...@gmail.com
--- Comment #8
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7176
Jacob Carlborg changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d...@me.com
--- Comment #7 from Jacob
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7176
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan M Davis 2012-01-03 19:10:35
PST ---
> What kind of harm are you referring to?
It doesn't fit with the rest of the language. The syntax is very different from
other declarations. This reduces readability and increa
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7176
--- Comment #5 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2012-01-03 16:54:10 PST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Currently I am neutral toward this feature. I see it used in Scala and it looks
nice, but I don't think it will improve my D programs a lot.
> Thi
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7176
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan M Davis 2012-01-03 16:48:12
PST ---
It's very different IMHO to introduce it in lambdas which are already part of
an expression and where the number of characters definitely matters than it is
to introduce it in no
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7176
timon.g...@gmx.ch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||timon.g...@gmx.ch
--- Comment #3 fr
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7176
Jonathan M Davis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jmdavisp...@gmx.com
--- Comment #2
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7176
--- Comment #1 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2012-01-03 16:07:57 PST ---
There are 3 votes now. But this feature doesn't add a lot to D. This feature
looks nice, but I don't feel a need for it in my code.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremag
24 matches
Mail list logo
