Precedence of 'new' vs '.'
schveiguy at yahoo.com
Wed May 6 05:45:41 PDT 2009
On Tue, 05 May 2009 21:43:54 -0400, Ary Borenszweig <ary at esperanto.org.ar>
> Frank Benoit escribió:
>> In Java one can write:
>> new MyClass().run();
>> in D this does not compile, parenthesis are needed.
>> (new MyClass()).run();
>> But why is the D language designed like that?
> I think it's because the (already hated by many, including myself)
> ability to invoke a function (or a constructor) without parenthesis.
> new MyClass.run
> new MyClass().run
> should be the same, right?
> But in the first case MyClass could be a package name and you are
> constructing a new "MyClass.run" instance. You could make them behave
> differently, but some would say it's not consistent, etc.
If properties are every properly established, I hope the ability to call
default constructors without having parens does not go away. It's
different than a property function call.
I would say it's ok to make them behave differently. As others have said,
we already have instances where you have to use parens to delineate where
you are calling a function versus accessing a member.
For example, the (admittedly seldom used) chaining call of Stdout in
Tango, if you want to insert a new line it's:
Without the extra parens, it looks like you're trying to call newline with
the argument "hi".
More information about the Digitalmars-d