Last - but not least! - two DConf talks

[Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On 2015-07-17 10:16, "Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?= <schuetzm at gmx.net>" 
wrote:

> Does your implementation support parameterized lambdas? I can already
> see the next ambiguity:
>
>      someRange.each (element) {
>          writeln(element);
>      }
>
> Do the parentheses belong to the lambda on the right or the function on
> the left?

Currently, in the above example, "element" is interpreted as an argument 
to "each".

No, the current implementation does not support parameters. It's a 
really simple modification in the parser. If we really want to support 
this feature more work could be put in to this and make it work.

I would say that it should first try to interpret "element" as an 
argument to "each", if that doesn't work, try as a parameter for the 
delegate. Just going with the longest match, if that doesn't work try 
the next thing.

This feature has come up before, one of the suggestions back then was to 
do allow this syntax:

someRange.each(start; element) {
     writeln(element);
}

Everything after the semicolon would be interperted as parameters for 
the delegate.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg