Re: 'with(Foo):' not allowed, why?
I've given my thoughts on the D section. It would be heavily useful as a shorthand for enums you plan on using a lot in a switch case or something, beyond that it could be troublesome...
Re: 'with(Foo):' not allowed, why?
On Saturday, 9 August 2014 at 03:46:05 UTC, timotheecour wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 17:03:23 UTC, Timothee Cour via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
Is there a reason why 'with(Foo):' is not allowed, and we have
to
use with(Foo){...} ?
It would be more in line with how other scope definitions work
(extern(C)
etc)
ping, anyone?
Probably for syntactic reasons: `with` is a statement, while
`extern(C)`, `@safe`, `private` etc. are attributes.
But the idea is certainly nice, it would only require a simple
rewriting rule.
Re: 'with(Foo):' not allowed, why?
On Saturday, 9 August 2014 at 09:11:53 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
On Saturday, 9 August 2014 at 03:46:05 UTC, timotheecour wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 17:03:23 UTC, Timothee Cour via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
Is there a reason why 'with(Foo):' is not allowed, and we
have to
use with(Foo){...} ?
It would be more in line with how other scope definitions
work (extern(C)
etc)
ping, anyone?
Probably for syntactic reasons: `with` is a statement, while
`extern(C)`, `@safe`, `private` etc. are attributes.
But the idea is certainly nice, it would only require a simple
rewriting rule.
Also a way to cancel such...
struct Foo {
@nogc:
void bar() {
with (someEnum):
// ...
!:with (someEnum) // ?
// ...
}
!:@nogc // ?
void gcFunction() { /*...*/ }
}
Re: 'with(Foo):' not allowed, why?
On Saturday, 9 August 2014 at 09:11:53 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
On Saturday, 9 August 2014 at 03:46:05 UTC, timotheecour wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 17:03:23 UTC, Timothee Cour via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
Is there a reason why 'with(Foo):' is not allowed, and we
have to
use with(Foo){...} ?
It would be more in line with how other scope definitions
work (extern(C)
etc)
ping, anyone?
Probably for syntactic reasons: `with` is a statement, while
`extern(C)`, `@safe`, `private` etc. are attributes.
But the idea is certainly nice, it would only require a simple
rewriting rule.
It's surprisingly easy to implement:
https://github.com/schuetzm/dmd/commit/b11368be183fd9b299508722cf8e9c32df2f1ac5
If you think it's useful, you can suggest it on digitalmars.D. If
it is well-received, I can add some tests and update the
documentation.
Re: 'with(Foo):' not allowed, why?
On Saturday, 9 August 2014 at 09:52:02 UTC, Messenger wrote:
On Saturday, 9 August 2014 at 09:11:53 UTC, Marc Schütz wrote:
On Saturday, 9 August 2014 at 03:46:05 UTC, timotheecour wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 17:03:23 UTC, Timothee Cour via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
Is there a reason why 'with(Foo):' is not allowed, and we
have to
use with(Foo){...} ?
It would be more in line with how other scope definitions
work (extern(C)
etc)
ping, anyone?
Probably for syntactic reasons: `with` is a statement, while
`extern(C)`, `@safe`, `private` etc. are attributes.
But the idea is certainly nice, it would only require a simple
rewriting rule.
Also a way to cancel such...
struct Foo {
@nogc:
void bar() {
with (someEnum):
// ...
!:with (someEnum) // ?
// ...
}
!:@nogc // ?
void gcFunction() { /*...*/ }
}
with(x):
without(x); // cancel
without(); // cancel following with() declarations order.
with(x):
with(y):
with(z):
without()// no more z
without(x) // no more x
without() // only one remaining so no more y
But isn't the with expression considered as a bad practice
(whatever the lang. is) ?
Re: 'with(Foo):' not allowed, why?
On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 at 17:03:23 UTC, Timothee Cour via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
Is there a reason why 'with(Foo):' is not allowed, and we have
to
use with(Foo){...} ?
It would be more in line with how other scope definitions work
(extern(C)
etc)
ping, anyone?
'with(Foo):' not allowed, why?
Is there a reason why 'with(Foo):' is not allowed, and we have to
use with(Foo){...} ?
It would be more in line with how other scope definitions work (extern(C)
etc)
