A nice way to step into 2012

[Alex Rønne Petersen]

On 29-12-2011 14:10, Alex Rønne Petersen wrote:
> On 29-12-2011 14:07, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2011-12-29 10:19, Don wrote:
>>> On 28.12.2011 17:41, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>>>> On 2011-12-27 23:27, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>>>> On 12/27/2011 05:25 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>>>> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/675898721c04d0bf155a85abf986eae99c37c0dc
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrei
>>>>>
>>>>> Great! =)
>>>>>
>>>>> What about making => syntax available to named functions as well?
>>>>>
>>>>> class C{
>>>>> private int x;
>>>>> int getX() => x;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> void main(){
>>>>> int[] arr;
>>>>> bool isOdd(int x) => x&1;
>>>>> writeln(arr.filter!isOdd());
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't say no to that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think it improves readability, since it doesn't occur in
>>> arbitrary contexts. It'll always be the only thing on the line.
>>> I think that example is close to the best case, but
>>>
>>> bool isOdd(int x) { return x & 1; }
>>>
>>> is not terribly difficult to read.
>>> So all you're doing is saving 6 characters + one space.
>>> The longer the return expression becomes, the less it matters.
>>>
>>> real isComplicated(int param1, Foo param2, real param3) => 43.4 *
>>> foo(param2, bar(param2, param1 + param3 * param3,), 556.4 * param1) +
>>> param3 + param1 *param2 * param2.baz(param1 + 46, param1*2.46);
>>>
>>> doesn't look any more readable than the equivalent code with a return
>>> statement. Especially not in the member function case.
>>>
>>
>> When you're implementing a lot of properties that basically just
>> forwards to the instance variables it can be really useful.
>>
>
> +1.
>
> - Alex

It would be hard to specify in/out for such properties though, with the 
=> syntax (this is something I do often).

- Alex