Is the compiler supposed to accept this?

deadalnix deadalnix at gmail.com
Wed Jul 10 18:17:03 PDT 2013


On Wednesday, 10 July 2013 at 21:33:00 UTC, Brian Schott wrote:
> On Wednesday, 10 July 2013 at 21:16:30 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> // (parameters) => expression ?
>>
>> In any case, please consider that it actually makes no sense 
>> to restrict the expressiveness of the type signature based on 
>> how the function body is specified. (Why on earth should one 
>> have to use the { return expression; } syntax just in order to 
>> be able to assert that no context pointer is required?)
>>
>> The documentation is in error here.
>
> "(parameters) => expression" is mentioned in the source and I 
> agree it's valid. I must have forgotton to copy-paste it.
>
> I don't agree that "function(parameters) => expression" is 
> valid though. Can any of the DMD devs clear up if this is 
> intended?

I don't see how DMD implementation matters here. This is language 
design issue.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list