Nicer syntax for constructors
NoMoreBugs at gmail.com
Mon Nov 19 12:30:20 UTC 2018
On Sunday, 18 November 2018 at 19:09:16 UTC, Trailzz wrote:
> I'm not sure exactly what the syntax would be like, but I just
> wanted to know what other people think about this. Would it be
> worth creating a DIP for this?
Well, let's step back a bit, from the so called 'code bloat', and
have a look at the definition of a function:
return-type function-name(parameter declarations, if any)
What you are suggesting, is, in order to save a few keystrokes,
that D changes the definition of a function (or a constructor
function in this case).
No language that has functions allows you do initialize variables
in the section where you declare your parameters - at least, no
language that I am aware of.
Lets not surprise newcomers to D, anymore than they are already
going to be surprised.
Its bad enough you can't have a private member within a module!
Initializing variables in the parameter section of the function
would be a step too far.
More information about the Digitalmars-d