On 2011-03-03 17:25, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Thursday 03 March 2011 01:31:38 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-03-03 08:16, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Wednesday 02 March 2011 23:12:43 %u wrote:
Well, it wouldn't be universal then. For a function to be treated
as a property, it would require an annotation, but universal
function call syntax isn't supposed to require an annotation any
more than calling a function on an array as if it were a member
function requires an annotation. It's supposed to work with any
function.
So are you saying a hypothetical function like
char[] strcpy(char[] destination, const char[] source);
should be callable like:
myString.strcpy(myString2);
?
Isn't that asking for disaster, since it does the exact opposite of
what the user expects (since the source and destination are
switched)?
I think we need an annotation for this (even for arrays), since
otherwise it's too easy to go wrong.
How are the destination and source switched? The arguments are in the
exact same order, only now one of them is to the left of the function
name. It's been like this with arrays for a long time. It's not going
away, and it's not going to require an annotation. That would be a big
change to the language, and the ability to call arrays like this is
well-liked and often-used. And a number of people definitely want
uniform function call syntax to be implemented so that it works for all
types.
I don't see what's easy to go wrong with this syntax. It's quite
straightforward. It's been around for quite a while. And it's well-liked.
It's not going to be changed. The only question is whether it's ever
going to be implemented for types in general.
- Jonathan M Davis
What I think he means is, if you see a function call like this:
myString.strcpy(myString2);
You would expect "myString" to be the source and "myString2" the
destination.
But that's not how the function is written. The left parameter is the
destination. If myString.strcpy(myString2) is confusing, I would expect
strcpy(myString, myString2) to be just as confusing. I don't see how using the
member function call syntax like that makes it any more confusing. Not to
mention, functions with a source and destination like that end up in both orders
all the time, so I don't think that you can generally expect it in one order or
the other anyway.
- Jonathan M Davis
I think strcpy(myString, myString2) would be confusing as well but I
think myString.strcpy(myString2) is a little more confusing than the
other syntax.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
