On Tuesday, 7 April 2015 at 19:46:07 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
On 4/7/15 3:34 PM, deadalnix wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 April 2015 at 18:01:53 UTC, Ary Borenszweig
wrote:
On 4/7/15 2:16 PM, deadalnix wrote:
On Tuesday, 7 April 2015 at 08:58:57 UTC, ixid wrote:
Or to be more consistent with UFCS:
foreach (name; names.parallel) {
name.writeln;
}
no.please
wat
unreadable.is.ufcs.using.over
Yes, I don't like "writeln" being used with UFCS, it's an abuse.
My point is that every language has WATs :-)
Why is it 'an abuse'? Do you special case any other functions or
is names.parallel unacceptable as well? Are longer chains ending
in writeln acceptable or do you insist in putting the whole chain
inside a parens writeln?
name.reverse.writeln
or
writeln(name.reverse)
or surely that would break your dislike of single UFCS arguments
so you should stick to:
writeln(reverse(name))
Which is proper yoda speak.
