"with" should be deprecated with extreme prejudice
fraserofthenight at gmail.com
Sun May 17 21:53:39 PDT 2009
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "BCS" <none at anon.com> wrote in message
> news:a6268ff5f5d8cba54f824da454 at news.digitalmars.com...
>> Hello Nick,
>>> I'm not a touch-typer, but I've never seen much of a point to "with".
>>> If I have to access a bunch of members of
>>> "foo.member.x.bar.fizzle", I'll just do "auto fizz =
>>> foo.member.x.bar.fizzle;" and use that, or put it into
>> that dosn't work if it's by value and is used as an Lvalue.
>>> a function that takes a "typeof(fizze)", or do something else along
>> like this? that looks... odd.
>> void outer()
>> void inner(ref T t)
>>> those lines. I've yet to come across a case where something like
>>> that isn't perfectly sufficient.
> Like I said, "or something along those lines". It all depends on the
> specific code. I just haven't ever had any specific case where I felt like I
> needed "with".
I mainly use it for initialization of things:
static S opCall(_x, _y)
x = _x;
y = _y;
happiness = null;
More information about the Digitalmars-d