DMD 0.166 release

[Walter Bright]

Sean Kelly wrote:
> 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.

Ok.

>> 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.

Yes, it would be the same. But I think the interface should be set by 
the definition, not the use. That's the usual practice with programming 
languages, and I've never seen it raised as an issue before.