Lazy eval

[Stewart Gordon]

Frank Benoit wrote:
>>> func( char[] a ) vs. func( char[] delegate() dg )
>>>
>>> func( funcRetInt() ); vs. func( &funcRetInt );
>> If that's the case, then something's wrong.  If funcRetInt returns a
>> char[], despite the name, then funcRetInt() is of type char[]. Therefore
>> it should match this first.
> 
> This is the first example, showing a ambiguity
> func( char[] a ) vs. func( char[] delegate() dg )

If one overload matches exactly, it goes without saying that that's the 
one that's called.  As such, the programmer would do

     func("qwert");

to call the first, and

     func({ return "qwert"; });

to call the second.  Just like in any other case.

> This is a second example, which has no relation to the first.
> func( funcRetInt() ); vs. func( &funcRetInt );

In that case, I don't get what your problem is.

> And the "vs." is not a object reference. Sorry.

Pardon?

>>> { "abc"         } => char[] delegate()
>> That syntax looks confusingly like an array initialiser....
> 
> the '=>' was not a syntax proposal
> "{ "abc"         }" /is of type/ "char[] delegate()"

The '=>' doesn't look anything like an array initialiser either.  Unless 
there's some other kind of array initialiser that I haven't discovered 
yet....

Wasn't it obvious that I was talking about the bit to the left of those 
two characters?

-- 
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:-@ C++@ a->--- UB@ P+ L E@ W++@ N+++ o K-@ w++@ O? M V? PS- 
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox.  Please keep replies on 
the 'group where everyone may benefit.