On Wednesday, 8 April 2015 at 08:35:52 UTC, ixid wrote:
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?
There are two main use cases for UFCS:
1) akin to extension methods in C#. It only ever makes sense to
use UFCS syntax for cases where you would consider actually
having method like this in used data type.
2) more readable syntax for functional style processing pipeline
There is no way anyone would ever add method called "writeln" to
user data type and it is clearly not pipeline function. This is
plain and disgusting abuse of the syntax, I am fully with
deadalnix here.
For parallel it may be feasible if data set is actually intended
for parallelization by design but I would personally consider
that fishy too.
Omitting parens from function calls with side effects is another
horrible sin but that is more of a personal taste thing.
