On 6 August 2013 19:25, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 06, 2013 11:05:56 Jakob Ovrum wrote: > > What does everyone think? > > I'm completely opposed to the removal of string lambdas. Obviously, they > don't > always work. More complicated functions definitely need to use the newer > lambda > syntax or function literals. But for simple lambdas, they're way better. > I'd > _much_ rather have func!"a != b"(args) than func!((a, b) => a != b)(args) > or > func!"a < b"(args) than func!((a, b) => a < b)(args). String lambdas are > nice > and short, and I think that they're plenty clear, and if they're not, > they're > trivial to explain. > Can you give an example where you've actually used a string lambda before where the predicate is more complex than a basic comparison? Surely the solution to this problem is to offer a bunch of templates that perform the most common predicates in place of unary/binaryFun? So rather than: func!((a, b) => a < b)(args) You use: func!binaryLess(args) Or something like that? The thing that annoys me about string vs proper lambda's, is that I never know which one I'm supposed to use. I need to refer to documentation every time. Also, the syntax highlighting fails. We already have string lambdas. Removing them would break code for little > benefit IMHO. If you prefer to use the newer lambda syntax, then use that, > but > I think that it's a definite loss if we get rid of the string lambdas, as > they're so much more concise when they do work. > > I also think that all new Phobos functions which take unary or binary > predicates should support string lambdas. It's trivial for them to do so, > and > it creates needless inconsistencies if some functions support them and some > don't. > > - Jonathan M Davis >
