Is phobos too fluffy?

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2020-09-17 18:34, H. S. Teoh wrote:

> as opposed to:
> 
> 	// Better
> 	struct MyRange(E)
> 	{
> 	    @property bool empty() { return _isEmpty; }
> 	    @property E front() { return _front; }
> 	    void popFront() { r.popFront; }
> 	}

I hate that style. But I wouldn't mind if D supported expression body 
definition like C# does:

struct MyRange(E)
{
     @property bool empty() => _isEmpty;
     @property E front() => _front;
     void popFront() => r.popFront;
}

It would look even better in Scala:

class MyRange[E]
{
   def empty = _isEmpty
   def front = _front
   def popFront() = r.popFront
}

In most languages in the C family, removing the curly braces for the 
body of `if`, `for`, `while` and so on is supported if the body only 
contains a single statement. Compared to Java, D extended this and 
allows to drop the curly braces for `try`, `catch` and `finally` as 
well. It just makes sense to allow to drop them for function bodies as well.

Scala goes even further and allows to drop the curly braces for classes:

class Foo

Not a very useful class but something like this also works in Scala:

class Point(x: Int, y: Int)

The above will automatically generate a instance variables, 
getters/setters and a constructor for the specified `x` and `y`.

Allowing to drop the curly braces is extra useful because in Scala the 
last statement in a method is returned automatically, that in 
combination with that all statements are actually expressions:

class Foo
{
   def bar(x: Int) =
     if (a == 3)
       "3"
     else if (a == 4)
       "4"
     else
       "other"
}

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg