On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 03:35:43PM +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2014-01-07 13:22, Philippe Sigaud wrote:
>
> >What about:
> >
> >void loop(void delegate() dg);
> >
> >loop({
> >...
> >
> >});
> >
> >Since any block is a void delegate().
>
> That's what we have now, and that doesn't look like a built-in
> statement ;)
[...]
Y'know, I've always wanted "trailing delegate syntax":
func(x, y, z; p, q, r) {
// body
}
gets translated into:
func(p, q, r, (x, y, z) => /* body */);
Since we already have UFCS, which translates a leading fragment into the
first argument (x.func(y) --> func(x,y)), it seems perfectly reasonable
to do something with the final argument too, like the above.
This would allow one to implement, for example, foreach_reverse as a
library function instead of a language keyword:
void foreach_reverse(I, R)(R range, void delegate(I) dg)
{
...
dg(idx);
...
}
// Gets translated to:
// foreach_reverse(range, (uint i) => /* body */);
foreach_reverse (uint i; range) {
... // body
}
// And you can use UFCS too:
range.foreach_reverse(uint i) {
... // body
}
I'm not holding my breath on this one, though. It's a rather big change
and ultimately is just syntactic sugar. Maybe it can go on the list of
features for D3... ;-)
T
--
Famous last words: I wonder what will happen if I do *this*...
