On 01/23/2013 10:08 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 21:54:54 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-01-23 21:46, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
I confess that it's syntax like that that makes dislike UFCS. I can see
why
you might like it, but personally, I find it to be hideous.
But as long as you're not using -property, you can do 2.days to get a
Duration of 2 days, much as I wish that you couldn't.
The point is that the code should read like regular text.
I know that that's what you're going for, but I don't agree with it at all.
It's code, not a novel.
What is the point?
But if you do:
auto t = ago(days(2));
It's backwards
I've programmed enough in functional languages (and in a functional style in
non-functional languages) to find 2.days().ago() to be horribly backwards.
IMHO, this is ridiculous. Real Haskell programmers are flexible enough
to use both orders.
sun^.position.x
but it's still better than:
auto a = Time.now() - 60 * 60 * 24 * 2; // don't know the exact syntax
Well, of course that's horrible. It's using naked numbers. The correct syntax
would be
auto a = Clock.currTime() - dur!"days"(2);
or if you don't want to use dur
auto a = Clock.currTime() - days(2);
And I see no problem with that.
- Jonathan M Davis
Likewise, there is no problem with 2.days.ago.
Clock.currTime() - dur!"days"(2) is more verbose without being more clear.
