Anonymous function syntax

[Mafi]

Am 22.09.2011 22:54, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
> On 9/21/11 5:17 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> I've collected a few from various languages for comparison:
> [snip]
>
> I think we should do the following:
>
> 1. Introduce a new token "=>"
>
> 2. Add this rewrite to the grammar:
>
> symbol => expression
>
> translates to
>
> (symbol) { return expression; }
>
> 3. Add this rewrite to the grammar:
>
> symbol1 symbol2 => expression
>
> translates to
>
> (symbol1 symbol2) { return expression; }
>
> 4. Add this rewrite to the grammar:
>
> (comma_separated_parms) => expression
>
> translates to
>
> (comma_separated_parms) => expression
>
> Each item in comma_separated_parms may be 1 or 2 symbols separated by
> whitespace. Example:
>
> (int a, b) => a + b
>
> is valid and translates to (int a, b) { return a + b; }
>
> 5. The expression cannot contain commas at top level; an unparenthesized
> comma is considered to finish expression, just like in a function call's
> argument list. For example:
>
> fun(int a => a + 1, a + 2)
>
> is interpreted as
>
> fun((int a => a + 1), (a + 2))
>
> To use comma inside expression, add parens around it.
>
> 5. Remove bugs and limitations. A function literal may specify none,
> all, or some parameter types, and the compiler correctly figures out the
> appropriate template and non-template parameters. The literal
> subsequently converts to function pointer or delegate whenever there's a
> match of parameter and result types.
>
>
>
> Andrei

If we decide to add something like this, the => 'operator' has in my 
opinion to have a higher precidence thand ! or you should be able to 
write it at least without parenthesis (using other parser tricks).
Like this:

map!x=>x+1(list)

Mafi