DMD 0.166 release

[Sean Kelly]

Russ Lewis wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Russ Lewis wrote:
>>
>>> Ah, I was wondering if that was what you meant.  What I was 
>>> suggesting was that the code
>>>     lazy x+y
>>> would just be syntax sugar for
>>>     delegate int() { return x+y; }
>>>
>>> So, to expand on the previous example:
>>>   void foo(int delegate() dg) {...}
>>>   void foo(int i) {...}
>>>   void bar(int x,int y) {
>>>     foo(lazy x+y); // calls delegate version
>>>     foo(x+y);      // calls int version
>>>   }
>>
>> Ok, that can work. But I don't see an application for it.
> 
> Heh, sems like I'm having a lot of trouble explaining myself here.
> 
> I'm not trying to argue that overloading a function with both delegate 
> and literal versions has a lot of value.  I was just trying to say that 
> the syntax I was proposing was not ambiguous.
> 
> My argument is that it would be good to make laziness explicit in the 
> caller, so that the caller of the code knows what he can expect.

I believe this is the same as Derek's suggestion that in/out/inout be 
specified at the call side as well.


Sean