Sat, 13 Apr 2013 17:46:10 +0200: Timon Gehr wrote > On 04/13/2013 05:25 PM, qznc wrote: >> Sat, 13 Apr 2013 15:03:51 +0200: Vladimir Panteleev wrote >>> On Saturday, 13 April 2013 at 12:29:29 UTC, qznc wrote: >>>> While there is no syntactic sugar, >>> >>> What about lambdas? >>> >>> http://dlang.org/expression.html#Lambda >> >> Oh. I forgot about those. Thanks! >> >> The syntactic sugar seems to be quite diverse, since most of the >> FunctionLiteral is optional. As far as I understand the docs, all the >> following forms are valid? >> >> auto square1 = function int (int x) { return x*x; }; > > yes. > >> auto square2 = function (int x) { return x*x; }; > > yes. > >> auto square3 = (int x) { return x*x; }; > > yes. > >> auto square4 = int (int x) { return x*x; }; > > no. > >> auto square5 = (int x) => x*x; > > yes. > >> auto square6 = x => x*x; >> >> > no. (valid grammar, but you need some type annotation.) > > But there are more, like function(int x)=>x*x.
That one is not documented in the grammar. A Lambda does not start with "function" and a FunctionLiteral does not contain "=>". What is it?
