On Tuesday, 12 February 2013 at 14:10:41 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2013-02-12 13:08, Era Scarecrow wrote:
No, deducing types like this won't work for static typing, be
they anonymous or not. The only way they'd work is if they
only existed for the one instance, being point or point_color,
but auto wouldn't allow you to auto determine it; But still
that doesn't seem like a good syntax to have and I'd rather
take the extra line to define the type to ensure it's uniqe,
Or tuples if it's only data..
You obviously don't understand how I want it to work.
Seems I did misread what you had, however having it creating
dozens of misc/anonymous types doesn't seem like a wise idea. The
entire block as it was defined is more like a scope/code block
rather than a struct declaration; Then is it a delegate instead?
(without return type or input type possibly)
int x = 100;
int y = {
int z;
int isPrime(int n);
z = x * 100;
// z = isPrime(100); //alternate to avoid 'nested'
};
//was code block run? (delegate or anonymous function)
assert(y.z == 10000);
writeln(y.z); //allowed?
writeln(y.isprime(x)); //allowed?
y(); //allowed?
//if y is code block can be run...
//last line is return line? Or not?
assert(y() == x*100);
// assert(y() == 0); //isprime version
Now if it relies on x or not, is it now nested or not? Keep in
mind the following is completely legal in C/C++/D. I've used this
before to help separate and fold code.
{
//inner scope
{
int tmp = 256;
//some code involving tmp
}
}
