On Thursday, 22 June 2017 at 22:12:57 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
On Thursday, 22 June 2017 at 21:56:29 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 22.06.2017 23:51, MysticZach wrote:
On Thursday, 22 June 2017 at 21:41:55 UTC, MysticZach wrote:
The whole double parentheses is a bit ugly to me. Is there
any problem with
out(return > 0)
instead of
out(r) (r > 0)
I'm sorry, I didn't read closely. I think that's just asking
for trouble, wanting to use `return` as an identifier. Timon
found a specific reason why, but in general contextual
keywords are frowned upon for precisely this type of
ambiguity in the meaning of the code.
(It's not a contextual keyword. A contextual keyword is an
identifier that is reserved in some contexts but not others.)
I would argue that the above suggestion promotes `return`
precisely that way. It's now an identifier in precisely that
one context, but is reserved as a keyword in all other
contexts. Not sure what to call it. But we're a little off
topic, as we both agree that the above solution to the double
parens isn't viable, right?
It's not an identifier, means syntactically it is still a
reserved keyword but you are right that it would be semantically
very different. In normal contexts it's a flow control statement
in that context it is an alias to a value with no influence of
the program flow. Would be really annoyingly contradictory.
