Am Mon, 08 Sep 2014 19:12:22 +0200 schrieb Timon Gehr <timon.g...@gmx.ch>:
> On 09/08/2014 07:00 PM, Marco Leise wrote: > > Am Mon, 8 Sep 2014 18:34:10 +0300 > > schrieb ketmar via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com>: > > > >> On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 17:25:07 +0200 > >> Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d@puremagic.com> wrote: > >> > >>> int square(int x)=>x*x; > >> noted. > > > > To clarify: > > The above is not valid D 2.066 syntax. > Your apparent confusion supports a point I made in favour of it some > time ago though. My post was about function declaration syntax, not > squaring numbers. I assume Ola will still want to support x² though. :o) I have to say, that was clever. I really didn't notice the wrong syntax until now. It doesn't get my vote though to keep some uniformness in function/method definitions. One time fire and forget lambdas are something different. They appear in the middle of expressions etc. > > There is x^^2, but the implementation uses pow(x,2) > > Is this really still true? > > > and presumably yields a "real" result > > No, both pow(x,2) and x^^2 yield an 'int' result. Ok, memorized. -- Marco