On Thursday, 30 August 2018 at 21:40:40 UTC, Everlast wrote:
On Thursday, 30 August 2018 at 00:10:42 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
[...]
This is not true! You claim that I'm making a blanket statement
about what mathematicians would view then you do the same.
[...]
If ... implies "an arbitrary
On Thursday, 30 August 2018 at 00:10:42 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 August 2018 at 22:18:09 UTC, Everlast wrote:
No it is not! you have simply accepted it to be fact, which
doesn't make it consistent.
If you take 100 non-programmers(say, mathematicians) and ask
them what is the n
On Wednesday, 29 August 2018 at 22:18:09 UTC, Everlast wrote:
If you take 100 non-programmers(say, mathematicians) and ask
them what is the natural extension of allowing an arbitrary
number of parameters knowing that A is a type and [] means
array and ... means an arbitrary number of, they will
On Wednesday, 29 August 2018 at 22:18:09 UTC, Everlast wrote:
No it is not! you have simply accepted it to be fact, which
doesn't make it consistent.
If you take 100 non-programmers(say, mathematicians) and ask
them what is the natural extension of allowing an arbitrary
number of parameters k
On Wednesday, 29 August 2018 at 21:14:59 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 August 2018 at 19:56:31 UTC, Everlast wrote:
One of the things that makes a good language is it's internal
syntactic consistency. This makes learning a language easier
and also makes remembering it easier. Determi
On Wednesday, 29 August 2018 at 19:56:31 UTC, Everlast wrote:
One of the things that makes a good language is it's internal
syntactic consistency. This makes learning a language easier
and also makes remembering it easier. Determinism is a very
useful tool as is abstraction consistency. To say
On Wednesday, 29 August 2018 at 19:56:31 UTC, Everlast wrote:
On Tuesday, 28 August 2018 at 22:01:45 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
[...]
One of the things that makes a good language is it's internal
syntactic consistency. This makes learning a language easier
and also makes remembering it easier.
On Tuesday, 28 August 2018 at 22:01:45 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
On Tuesday, 28 August 2018 at 20:37:05 UTC, Everlast wrote:
Also, the biggest complaint is that when we use [] attached to
a type it has a specific meaning as "an array of". e.g., int[]
means an array of int's.
But int[] a... then
On Tuesday, 28 August 2018 at 20:37:05 UTC, Everlast wrote:
the second one seems better. Simpler, more direct, more
obvious, and inline with the standard non variadic syntax. The
ellipses pretty much state that we are dealing with an array,
no reason to add redundancy.
That's not obvious, e.g
On Tuesday, 28 August 2018 at 20:37:05 UTC, Everlast wrote:
Also, the biggest complaint is that when we use [] attached to
a type it has a specific meaning as "an array of". e.g., int[]
means an array of int's.
But int[] a... then changes as we don't have an array of int's
any more but simply
On Tuesday, 28 August 2018 at 19:40:36 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
On Tuesday, 28 August 2018 at 19:09:38 UTC, Everlast wrote:
Yeah, I see the link paul posted. The actual syntax seems a
bit strange to me...
We don't do
A[] a
So it is not "logical".
foo(A...)(A a)
but if A is a specific t
On Tuesday, 28 August 2018 at 19:09:38 UTC, Everlast wrote:
Yeah, I see the link paul posted. The actual syntax seems a bit
strange to me...
We don't do
A[] a
So it is not "logical".
foo(A...)(A a)
but if A is a specific type we must do
foo(int[] a ...)
The actual syntax then looks l
On Tuesday, 28 August 2018 at 19:09:38 UTC, Everlast wrote:
On Tuesday, 28 August 2018 at 12:00:50 UTC, bauss wrote:
On Sunday, 26 August 2018 at 02:26:58 UTC, Everlast wrote:
in fact, I'd rather see
void print(T)(T t, int... a)
You were actually close.
void print(T)(T t, int[] a ...);
Ye
On Tuesday, 28 August 2018 at 12:00:50 UTC, bauss wrote:
On Sunday, 26 August 2018 at 02:26:58 UTC, Everlast wrote:
in fact, I'd rather see
void print(T)(T t, int... a)
You were actually close.
void print(T)(T t, int[] a ...);
Yeah, I see the link paul posted. The actual syntax seems a bit
On Sunday, 26 August 2018 at 02:26:58 UTC, Everlast wrote:
in fact, I'd rather see
void print(T)(T t, int... a)
You were actually close.
void print(T)(T t, int[] a ...);
On Sunday, 26 August 2018 at 02:26:58 UTC, Everlast wrote:
The problem is, suppose one wants to specify A
void print(T, int... A)(T t, A a)
while tricks can be used, why doesn't D support such an obvious
syntax? We can specify an arbitrary type but can't restrict it
in an obvious way, in fact
void print()
{
}
void print(T, A...)(T t, A a)
{
import std.stdio;
writeln(t);
print(a);
}
The problem is, suppose one wants to specify A
void print(T, int... A)(T t, A a)
while tricks can be used, why doesn't D support such an obvious
syntax? We can specify an arbitrary type but
17 matches
Mail list logo
