Walter Bright:
* optional named parameters arguments (with simplest possible
syntax)
This comes up now and then. The problem with it is it makes
function overloading a near impossibility to untangle.
Do you have an example of the problem?
* better way to define default constructors:
class Point {
num x;
num y;
num z;
// Syntactic sugar for setting z and x before the
constructor body runs.
Point(this.z, this.x){...}
}
This is more explicit and flexible than D's way for default
struct constructors,
which can only allow to set all fields in order, without
skipping some, and
doesn't allow to do anything else in the ctor.
D doesn't allow non-trivial default struct constructors for
some good reasons, which are a long discussion we've had many
times. These reasons don't apply to javascript.
The idea of having some syntax like this is nice, it reduces the
poilerplace code, making the code less noisy and reducing the
probability of the currenty common bugs caused by having fields
and arguments with equal or similar names:
class Foo {
int x;
this(this.x) {}
void inc(int x) { this.x += x; }
}
* shorthand function declaration with => (used not just for
lambdas)
tomayto, tomahto :-)
There is an enhancement request on this in Bugzilla.
A shorter syntax for simple functions is handy, because one-line
functions have become very common in D.
Bye,
bearophile
