Re: DIP 1043---Shortened Method Syntax---Accepted
On Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 10:39:27 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: For example: T front() => from; becomes: T front => from; As DIP author, Max decided against this. He said it's not a bad idea, but it's then "inconsistent with other the other syntaxes". If there is a demand for this, it would be easy to add later, but he felt it's better to keep things simple for now by going with the current implementation as is. It's one of those things that aren't necessary, but bring some small "quality of life" kind of change to the code we write. At least in my opinion, I quite like it, the same way I like how I can call a parameter-less function without parentheses.
Re: DIP 1043---Shortened Method Syntax---Accepted
On 21.09.22 12:39, Mike Parker wrote: The fact that the feature was already implemented behind a preview switch carried weight with Atila. He noted that, if not for that, he wasn't sure where he would stand on adding the feature, but he could see no reason to reject it now. The benevolent way to read that is that Atila liked that he could easily try out the new feature and judge it more fairly because of that. The mean way to read it is that Atila employs some circular reasoning: Accept the preview implementation, deferring to the DIP process to catch a bad proposal. Accept the DIP, referring to the preview implementation as justification.
Re: DIP 1043---Shortened Method Syntax---Accepted
On Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 10:39:27 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: For example: T front() => from; becomes: T front => from; I kind of agree with Max's contention, but nonetheless, I quite like it.
Re: DIP 1043---Shortened Method Syntax---Accepted
On Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 13:56:35 UTC, Meta wrote: On Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 10:40:42 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: On Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 10:39:27 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: DIP 1043, "Shortened Method Syntax", has been accepted. https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1043.md That's awesome! Congrats to Max. And to Adam. I believe it's his implementation behind the preview switch.
Re: DIP 1043---Shortened Method Syntax---Accepted
On Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 10:40:42 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: On Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 10:39:27 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: DIP 1043, "Shortened Method Syntax", has been accepted. https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1043.md That's awesome! Congrats to Max.
Re: DIP 1043---Shortened Method Syntax---Accepted
On 21.09.22 12:39, Mike Parker wrote: DIP 1043, "Shortened Method Syntax", has been accepted. The fact that the feature was already implemented behind a preview switch carried weight with Atila. He noted that, if not for that, he wasn't sure where he would stand on adding the feature, but he could see no reason to reject it now. Walter accepted with a suggested (not a required) enhancement: It could be even shorter. For functions with no arguments, the () could be omitted, because the => token will still make it unambiguous. For example: T front() => from; becomes: T front => from; As DIP author, Max decided against this. He said it's not a bad idea, but it's then "inconsistent with other the other syntaxes". If there is a demand for this, it would be easy to add later, but he felt it's better to keep things simple for now by going with the current implementation as is. Great news! :)
Reminder: DConf Online '22 Submission Deadline (and website now live)
As I announced previously, the deadline for DConf Online '22 submissions is October 9. If you'd like to submit a talk, please visit https://dconf.org/2022/online/ for the details!
Re: DIP 1043---Shortened Method Syntax---Accepted
On Wednesday, 21 September 2022 at 10:39:27 UTC, Mike Parker wrote: DIP 1043, "Shortened Method Syntax", has been accepted. https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/accepted/DIP1043.md
DIP 1043---Shortened Method Syntax---Accepted
DIP 1043, "Shortened Method Syntax", has been accepted. The fact that the feature was already implemented behind a preview switch carried weight with Atila. He noted that, if not for that, he wasn't sure where he would stand on adding the feature, but he could see no reason to reject it now. Walter accepted with a suggested (not a required) enhancement: It could be even shorter. For functions with no arguments, the () could be omitted, because the => token will still make it unambiguous. For example: T front() => from; becomes: T front => from; As DIP author, Max decided against this. He said it's not a bad idea, but it's then "inconsistent with other the other syntaxes". If there is a demand for this, it would be easy to add later, but he felt it's better to keep things simple for now by going with the current implementation as is.
