@property needed or not needed?

[deadalnix]

Le 20/11/2012 04:33, Jacob Carlborg a écrit :
> On 2012-11-20 08:48, thedeemon wrote:
>
>> This is just an old habit to see identifier with parens as a function
>> call and identifier without parens as a variable, so calling functions
>> without parens seem too unconventional to you. However there are many
>> languages which dropped this tradition and they are known for being
>> expressive and concise, that's why people love them. Recently we saw an
>> article from Walter about component programming which one could say was
>> really about function composition. It's really convenient to write code
>> in conveyor-style, this is what we see often in functional languages, as
>> well as some dynamic OO ones. For example, the task of reversing words
>> in a string may look like:
>
> I completely agree.
>
>> "one two three".split.map{|s| s.reverse}.join(' ')
>> in Ruby
>
> In this particular case you can use a shorter form of the map call:
>
> "one two three".split.map(&:reverse).join(' ')
>
>> print . unwords . map reverse . words $ "one two three"
>> in Haskell
>>
>> "one two three" |> split " " |> List.map reverse |> String.join " " |>
>> print_string
>> in OCaml
>> and something similar and even without dots in Scala.
>
> Wouldn't the Scala syntax look fairly similar to Ruby:
>
> "one two three".split.map(reverse).join(' ')
>

Note the map(reverse) and not map(&reverse)

>> Ease of chaining functions together is one of the things that make those
>> languages so pleasant to work with. I love to have the same in current D
>> and it would be a pity to lose it due to a clash with some old-fashioned
>> tradition.
>
> I completely agree again.
>