Re: why cant function parameters be grouped by type ?

[ketmar via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Sun, 12 Apr 2015 11:49:18 +, Baz wrote:

 Is there anything in the grammar that prevents this syntax ?

yes: nameless args. i would like to see 'em burned with napalm, but it 
seems to be too late to do that...

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

why cant function parameters be grouped by type ?

[Baz via Digitalmars-d-learn]

Hi,
while variable declarations work in list:


uint a,b,c;


function parameters declarations don't:


void foo(uint a,b,c);


Because of this, function declarations are sometimes super-wide.
(despite of the fact that: 
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alanperlis177279.html)


In the previous example, we could imagine that once a type 
defined, it'd valid until a new one appears (until a 
redefinition / an override).


Is there anything in the grammar that prevents this syntax ?

Thx.

Re: why cant function parameters be grouped by type ?

[Idan Arye via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Sunday, 12 April 2015 at 11:49:19 UTC, Baz wrote:

Hi,
while variable declarations work in list:


uint a,b,c;


function parameters declarations don't:


void foo(uint a,b,c);


Because of this, function declarations are sometimes super-wide.
(despite of the fact that: 
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alanperlis177279.html)


In the previous example, we could imagine that once a type 
defined, it'd valid until a new one appears (until a 
redefinition / an override).


Is there anything in the grammar that prevents this syntax ?

Thx.



void foo(int a, b);


Is `b` a second int argument, or is there a user defined type 
named `b` and the second argument is nameless of type `b`?