Omissible Parentheses...

Denis Koroskin 2korden at gmail.com
Sun Aug 2 08:01:01 PDT 2009


On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:30:33 +0400, Chad J  
<chadjoan at __spam.is.bad__gmail.com> wrote:

> KennyTM~ wrote:
>> Chad J wrote:
>>> Robert Jacques wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 01 Aug 2009 16:00:52 -0400, Michiel Helvensteijn
>>>> <m.helvensteijn.remove at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Robert Jacques wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I like them too (a lot). I find they increase the clarity of my code
>>>>>> (particularly function chaining).
>>>>> I think that when you find you need to use function-chaining, the
>>>>> functions
>>>>> (except possibly the rightmost) are often meant to be
>>>>> properties/fields.
>>>>> That's why they would look more natural without parentheses.
>>>>>
>>>> Nope. I meant _function_ chaining. This comment comes mostly from  
>>>> using
>>>> std.string and std.algorithm, whose functions don't behave as fields.
>>>> Both of these libraries show off the power you get from the  
>>>> flexibility
>>>> of function call / property duality. I've also used toggle/flag  
>>>> setting
>>>> methods in this way. It's concise, clean and very understandable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting.  I don't think I've seen this angle yet.
>>>
>>> Could you provide code examples, please?
>>
>> "<p>yes?</p>".replace("<", "&lt;").replace(">", "&gt;");
>
> I'm not seeing the use of function/property duals or the lack of
> parentheses.  Am I missing it?
>
> (To be clear, I am not looking for an example of function chaining.  I'd
> like to see why function/property duals are useful for function  
> chaining.)

Stdout("Hello, World!").newline.newline.newline;



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list