Minor extension to cast syntax

[Gregor Richards]

Bruce Adams wrote:
> Gregor Richards Wrote:
> 
>> Blech. Makes it look like you're calling a function with arguments being 
>> a type and then some expression. The current syntax is more similar to 
>> calling a templated cast function:
>>
>> cast(int)(foo)
>> cast!(int)(foo)
>>
>> That is, cast is a function with a template parameter of the type you're 
>> casting it to. This isn't how it's implemented at all of course, but the 
>> syntax is reminiscent of that, and I think that's the better analogy.
>>
>>   - Gregor Richards
> 
> Surely a cast is really a kind of function opCast() so using function syntax is appropriate.

My point was not the function syntax, my point was that it was a 
function that takes a type as an argument. That makes no sense.

> The old syntax sticks out as unusual.

Good. Casting is an unusual operation.

> There is that idea in language design that if it can be done as a function it should be unless there is a good reason not to.

In highly dynamic languages where performance isn't a primary objective, 
yes. Dynamic arrays, anyone?

> So, having inherited the C like syntax was their ever a good reason for it?

Yes. casting is a procedure which is not similar to anything else in C, 
so it has its own syntax.

> does that reason still apply?

Yes, casting is a procedure which is not similar to anything else in D, 
so it has its own syntax.


> If you were starting over again (as was supposed to be the case with D) would you still do it this way?

I write dynamic languages :)

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bruce.
> 

  - Gregor Richards