On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 16:55:31 +0000 deadalnix via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Saturday, 17 January 2015 at 16:02:16 UTC, ketmar via > Digitalmars-d wrote: > > On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 08:33:49 +0000 > > deadalnix via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> This is accepted : > >> auto fun(T)(T T) inout if(...) { ... } > >> > >> This is not : > >> auto fun(T)(T T) if(...) inout { ... } > >> > >> Is there a reason ? > > the first is easier to parse, and i it's looking better. the > > second is > > just unnecessary code in parser and will not be used in the > > wild to the > > extent that justifies increased complexity. > > You obviously have data to back your point, both in term of > readability, use in the wild and complexity added in the parser. > Because if you don't, you have no point whatsoever and should > probably not be posting. sure i have. i made alot of patches to the parser, so i know how it is written. to make this work parser need to be changed not less than to accept '@' before `pure`, `nothrow` and so on, and this change was rejected due to added complexity for supporting it by devteam. as for "will not be used" -- you can use google to count requests for this feature. the numbers will show you how much people miss it. i have no habit of writing tales from the faery world, you know.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
