Why Ruby?

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2010-12-12 19:37, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Nick Sabalausky"<a at a.a>  wrote in message
> news:ie34p4$dgk$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> "Adam D. Ruppe"<destructionator at gmail.com>  wrote in message
>> news:ie2sv2$2thb$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>> We already have a D block syntax!
>>>
>>> =====
>>>
>>> void myfun(void delegate() lol) {
>>>         lol();
>>> }
>>>
>>> void main() {
>>>         myfun = {
>>>                 assert(0, "lol");
>>>         };
>>> }
>>>
>>> ======
>>>
>>> Totally compiles. :-P
>>>
>>> It works with delegate arguments too!
>>>
>>> ========
>>>
>>> void myfun(void delegate(string) lol) {
>>>         lol("say it ");
>>> }
>>>
>>> void main() {
>>>         myfun = (string what) {
>>>                 assert(0, what ~ " lol");
>>>         };
>>> }
>>> ==========
>>>
>>> Whoa.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (note that while I'm only a little serious here - that actually
>>> looks fine to me - I don't think the language needs a change
>>> here. }); doesn't bother me one bit.)
>>
>> I'm sure that's going to disappear when D's properties get implemented as
>> intended.
>>
>
> And FWIW, it looks like operator-overload-abuse to me.

This is operator overload abuse:

myfun in (string what) {
     assert(0, what ~ " lol")
};

"myfun" would return a struct that has defined an opIn method.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg