http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5395
--- Comment #4 from Denis Derman <[email protected]> 2011-02-12 05:36:01 PST --- (In reply to comment #3) > Michel Fortin: > > > how do you rewrite this using the new proposed syntax: > > > > auto aa = [iota(a, b, c): 1, iota(d, e): 2]; Annoying. What about reusing '..' instead? Not obvious, sure, but should not introduce syntactic issues. The initial proposal of ':' is far to be obvious anyway, I guess. auto interval = 1..9..2; auto aa = [a..b..c:1, d..e:2]; Or a single dot (since intervals apply only on ints AFAIK): auto interval = 1..9.2; auto aa = [a..b.c:1, d..e:2]; But then we get a lexer ambiguity problem. Could be reinterpreted at compile-time; still, a bit stupid? Other solution: group it using (). Either () is part of the interval syntax, or optional in case of possible ambiguity: auto interval = 1..9:2; auto interval = (1..9:2); auto aa = [(a..b:c):1, d..e:2]; auto aa = [(a..b:c):1, (d..e):2]; I like it (but am not such a fan of saving keystrokes as Bearophile is ;-) Finally, let it down. Frequence of interval notations in code? Relative frequence of interval notations requiring a step? Denis -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
