Alternate declaration syntax

[Georg Wrede]

Hans W. Uhlig wrote:
> Hans W. Uhlig wrote:
> 
>> Yigal Chripun wrote:
>>
>>> Koroskin Denis wrote:
>>>
>>>> Talking about multiple return values, I'd like to see the following
>>>> syntax:
>>>>
>>>> // both types are 'int's (just for simplicity)
>>>> [int, int] someFunction()
>>>> {
>>>>     return [1, 2];
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> instead of, for example,
>>>>
>>>> Tuple!(int,int) somFunction()
>>>> {
>>>>     return Tuple!(int,int) {1, 2};
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> In fact, Tuple!(int,int) isn't that different from int[2].
>>>> They share 'length' property, and I like result[0] more than result._0,
>>>> 'cause it's simpler, more intuitive and behaves just like built-in 
>>>> type:
>>>>
>>>> auto result = someFunction();
>>>>
>>>> auto len = result.length; // compile-time evalualable
>>>> auto r0 = result[0];      // types can be easily deduced
>>>> auto r1 = result[1];
>>>> auto r2 = result[2];      // fails to compile, out of bounds.
>>>>
>>>> Whaddya think? :)
>>>
>>> I like the basic idea, although I would prefer a different operator 
>>> than [].
>>> basically, my only issue is that when i see res[i] I would assume that
>>> res is an array.
>>>
>>> Tuples have much more in common with structs than with arrays, and as
>>> such, I would prefer:
>>>
>>> {int, double} someFunction()
>>> {
>>>     return {1, 2.5};
>>> }
>>>
>>> and:
>>>
>>> auto result = someFunction();
>>>
>>> auto len = result.length; // compile-time evalualable
>>> auto r0 = result{0};      // types can be easily deduced
>>> auto r1 = result{0,1};  // define a new tuple with a subset of result's
>>> values
>>>
>>> or:
>>>
>>> result.at(0);
>>>
>>> or even something similar to ML's:
>>> r1 = $1(result) ; // second item in tuple
>>>
>>> -- Yigal
>>>
>> In this I must agree, using
>>
>>     return {1,"string",objectref}; is far cleaner then eigther prior 
>> reference.
> 
> I would think something similar to perl would work
> 
> {var1, var2, var3} = blah(1,2,3);
> {int var1, string var2, object var3} = blah(1,2,3);
> 
> const blah(int a, int b, int c) returns const int, invariant string, 
> object {
>     return 1, "hello", this;
> }

Well, at first sight, this looks nice.