Am 30.05.2013 13:41, schrieb MrzlganeE:
x := 2 / pi*z;
auto x = 2 / pi*z;
z := column(i, x, diag);
auto z = column(i, x, diag);
I don't think it's worth it force all people to write the second form,
over a theoretical nitpick that the programmer will possibly forget how
interpret symbols.
To me, 'auto' has a price. The price is a foreign word being inserted
into my math. It's an invasive term. It ruins the beautiful expression.
If you think the programmer is going to forget how to read symbols, you
should consider both sides: "The programmer might forget how to read
symbols, but also the programmer will be able to write declarative
expressions involving just their own terms."
It's not all bad, you see?
I am trying to reach for an expressiveness which allows such a simple
thing -- writing expressions that involve just my own terms: x. 2. pi.
z. That's the feature!
And allowing to make expressions with just my own terms is such a small
change to the language, we are only inches away from that. It drives me
crazy to be so close.
auto x = 2 / pi*z; is like ketchup in my sushi, every time.
Try to consider that people always oppose every single new thing. They
would have said the array slices are not C-like enough, and that '..' is
not in the C language and should not be used. But we have that great
feature now because somebody decided not to be so conservative.
I disagree.
Given my Pascal background I have a special liking for ":=", and Go also
makes use of ":=" in the form you propose.
However D's auto follows the way C++11 has decided for type inference
which is the crowd that we want to bring to D. And not very different
from var, also used for the same purpose in many other languages.
Additionally, we should avoid making D into a TIMTOWTDI language.
--
Paulo
