On Feb 22, 10 07:29, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
KennyTM~ wrote:
On Feb 22, 10 06:07, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Michel Fortin wrote:
On 2010-02-21 10:19:06 -0500, bearophile <[email protected]>
said:
Michel Fortin:
array.sort(predicate) // sort in place using predicate
array.sorted(predicate) // create sorted copy using predicate
array.isSorted(predicate) // tell if the array is sorted using
predicate
Good.
Another possibility is to let D2 accept ? and ! too inside variable
names, so they can become (as in Ruby I think, and something similar
is common in Lisp-like languages too):
array.sort(predicate)
array.sort!(predicate); // void function
array.sorted?(predicate)
Note that Ruby only accept this as a suffix, but yeah it's part of the
identifier.
And I'd love this, but the ! suffix is totally ambiguous with the
template instantiation syntax, and the ? suffix would be ambiguous in
the ternary operator "?:".
But ruby has the ternary operator "?:", it just gives the "?" in the
identifier more precedence.
So there's just the backwards compatibility problem, but if you had:
foo? something : something_else
then now it won't compile ("foo?" can't be found) and you'll have to
change it to
foo ? something : something_else
so it's a safe backwards incompatible change.
enum foo = false;
enum bar = 2;
...
case foo?(1):bar: break;
Suddenly, if "foo?" is defined, the value of the case completely
changed and you've got a "bar" label.
Cases are known at compile-time.
The program is changed when you recompile. (The foo? function can be CTFE).
The point is it is an unsafe backward incompatible change.
