On Thursday, 27 February 2014 at 17:25:22 UTC, Chris Williams
wrote:
just(myObject).method1().method2().method3()
You can't do that. You're reducing your example code - which
was several dozen lines and only applied to objects for which
you had added the special handler code - to the end result.
After you've laid the framework for doing this, yes, you can do
it. But there's a bunch of work that has to go into it before
you get to that point. (Also, your implementation is far less
efficient than something which rewrites the code as a bunch of
nested "if (not null)" checks.)
If your argument was that there are more important things for
the compiler team to work on, or that the syntax of the
language was already large enough without adding more things
for people to remember, then sure. But if we lived under the
premise that there's no reason to add features to a compiler
that abstract code down into a simpler syntax, then we'd have
never developed variables or functions.
Most of the code I posted would be hidden away in a library, and
will work with any type with methods or UDFs. I'll admit it is
incomplete (no implicit casting to the original return types for
example), but it is possible. End user code would be exactly as
that line is. I haven't checked the assembly, but given the
simplicity of the generated code I'm fairly certain it will
optimise to the same as the if/else chain (feel free to prove me
wrong :)).
Robert
