DMD 0.177 release [Length in slice expressions]

[Bill Baxter]

Chris Nicholson-Sauls wrote:
> BCS wrote:
>> Chris Nicholson-Sauls wrote:
> Not really, no.  But consider:
> 
> # ColdC                          D
> #
> # result = {@foo, 0, @bar};      result = foo ~ [0] ~ bar;
> # result = {42, @someFunc()};    result = [42] ~ someFunc();
> # result = {@foo, 1, @foo, 2};   result = foo ~ [1] ~ foo ~ [2];
> # result = {3, 6, @myConst, 9};  result = [3, 6] ~ myConst.dup ~ [9];
> 
> It becomes part of the literal syntax, which makes things cleaner in 
> most elaborate cases.  Just something I enjoy over there that I wouldn't 
> mind seeing from time to time over here.  :)

I think that syntax is a little more attractive than ~ for some cases. 
It makes it clearer that you're building a list.  We don't say [] ~ 1 ~ 
2 ~ 3 to make the array [1,2,3], after all.  But for that reason 
(because it's generalizing array literals) I think it should use [] 
instead of {}.  So

   result = [@foo, 0, @bar];

To me that certainly does make it clearer that I'm making a list out of 
lists.
The @ as a special symbol just for this kind of bothers me, though.  And 
how would it work for user-defined types?  I guess it could just be 
turned into the equivalent opCat calls...

--bb