"for" statement issue

[Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d]

On 10/21/16 10:38 AM, mogu wrote:
> On Friday, 21 October 2016 at 14:22:27 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On 10/21/16 10:12 AM, Temtaime wrote:
>>> On Friday, 21 October 2016 at 13:42:49 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>>>> On Friday, 21 October 2016 at 13:33:26 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Eh, that's exactly what the language rules say should happen, and it
>>>> actually does make sense to me... you might even want to use an
>>>> immediately-called lambda to group several statements together into
>>>> one expression.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Please, no.
>>> It's fully clear that { stmts } createa a lambda, just () is ommited.
>>
>> No, it's not.
>>
>> { int x; x = 2; }
>>
>> Is not a lambda. It's a scope.
>>
>> So the meaning changes based on where it's used. I totally agree that
>> we should remove that feature.
>>
>
> {} in swift is a lambda too.

Swift doesn't have arbitrary scopes. So there is no ambiguity.

> I think swift has better lambda syntax.
> Maybe could help for a better syntax in d.

We likely are not going to change the lambda syntax. However, it's 
possible we could remove the ambiguous cases.

> reversedNames = names.sorted(by: { (s1: String, s2: String) -> Bool in
>     return s1 > s2
> })
> reversedNames = names.sorted(by: { (s1: String, s2: String) -> Bool in
> return s1 > s2 } )
> reversedNames = names.sorted(by: { s1, s2 in return s1 > s2 } )
> reversedNames = names.sorted(by: { s1, s2 in s1 > s2 } )

(s1, s2) => s1 > s2

Seems pretty good to me

> reversedNames = names.sorted(by: { $0 > $1 } )

With the original string lambdas, this was possible as "a > b". I'm not 
sure this case is worth much effort to add.

> reversedNames = names.sorted(by: >)

Not sure if we'll ever get this in D :)

>
> someFunctionThatTakesAClosure(closure: {
>     // closure's body goes here
> })
> someFunctionThatTakesAClosure() {
>     // trailing closure's body goes here
> }

Yes, I've seen and used this. I think this is actually a little confusing.

-Steve