On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 06:59:11 -0400, Mafi <[email protected]> wrote:
Am 10.08.2010 05:21, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
Chris Williams wrote:
I'm not sure whether the design of D 2.0 has stabilized as yet, but if
not,
I would like to suggest the ability to create custom block types.
[snip]
FWIW we've been talking a long time ago about a simple lowering - if the
last argument to a function is a delegate, allow moving the delegate's
body outside of the function:
fun(a, b, c) { body }
|
V
fun((a, b, c) { body });
As far as Walter and I could tell, there are no syntactical issues
created by such a lowering. But we've been wrong about that in the past
(me 10x more often than him).
Andrei
Hi,
I don't want to be inpolite but what if fun returns a delegate which
accepts a delegate and fun is overloaded (the delegate parameter is
optional):
void delegate(void delegate()) fun();
void delegate(void delegate()) fun(void delegate());
...
fun(){...} //does this result in void or void delegate(void delegate())
...
It's the same as with property if they are allowed to call with parens.
But this is a very unlikely to happen. I don't even know if delegate are
allowed to take delegate as parameters.
You're not being impolite, this is exactly what Andrei is looking for and
delegates can take delegates as parameters. Although, you can't call
delegates without (), so my gut says "fun {...}" would have to resolve to
"fun(void delegate())". To use "delegate(void delegate()) fun()" the
syntax would be "fun()() {...}". In general, overload ambiguities like
these are allowed inside a module, but should be hijack errors when source
coming from multiple modules.
