On 01/24/2013 08:03 PM, Artur Skawina wrote:
...
Having said that, I'll elaborate on the sentence you quoted above. See for
example
Timon's code [1] here: http://dpaste.dzfl.pl/baa538af . Spot the recursion in
the
tree-walker. This is an example of the kind of abuse of parens-less calls that
an
unsuspecting programmer shouldn't have to deal with. Sure, in this case it's
simple
enough, but in more complex scenarios, where the 'inorder' field/method/ufcs
definition is not readily available, it would be extremely misleading. It's not
reasonable to expect everyone reading the code to check every single object
field
access, just in case the previous coder decided that the source looked "cuter"
w/o the '()'.
...
Uh...
class Tree(T){
InOrder!T inorder;
this(){inorder = InOrder!T(this); }
Tree!T l,r;
T v;
}
auto tree(T)(Tree!T l, T v, Tree!T r){
auto t = new Tree!T;
t.l=l;t.r=r;t.v=v;
return t;
}
auto tree(T)(T v){ return tree(Tree!T.init,v,Tree!T.init); }
struct InOrder(T){
this(Tree!T c){container=c;}
Tree!T container;
InOrder* t;
mixin Yield!(q{
if (container.l !is null){
for(t=[container.l.inorder].ptr;!t.empty;t.popFront())
yield t.front;
}
yield container.v;
if (container.r !is null){
for(t=[container.r.inorder].ptr;!t.empty;t.popFront())
yield t.front;
}
},T);
}
//InOrder!T inorder(T)(Tree!T container){ return InOrder!T(container); }
