A nice way to step into 2012
foo at bar.com
Wed Dec 28 00:11:09 PST 2011
On Wednesday, 28 December 2011 at 00:21:40 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
> On Tuesday, December 27, 2011 14:07:25 Jakob Ovrum wrote:
>> And it is indeed very important. It's one of the few syntax
>> we have to deal with in D, it would be a shame to let the
>> benefits of std.algorithm and any other functional D code be
>> overshadowed by the powerful but often excessive syntax of
>> anonymous functions.
> I find this sort of discussion to be somewhat funny. I don't
> think that it's a problem that D has added a new lambda syntax,
> but what we've had _so_ much better than C++ 98 that I never
> really cared. Sure, putting the return in there and all that is
> a bit verbose, but at least we have lambdas! I almost never use
> the algorithms in C++, because you have to define separate
> functors elsewhere. You don't even get nested functions! So,
> I've never seen much reason to complain about D's verbose
> lambda syntax, because it's so nice to have what we have rather
> than be forced to create functors and the like.
> So, this is certainly a welcome change, but I've also found it
> kind of odd that some people have been complaining about it so
> much. Most of them probably aren't C++ programmers.
> - Jonathan M Davis
So your argument basically boils down to: "I find it funny that
car owners (Non C++ programmers) complain about bicycles not
being fast enough. I mean, it's way better than walking
(Programming in C++)"
I fail to understand what's odd about that.
More information about the Digitalmars-d