shouting versus dotting

[Denis Koroskin]

On Sun, 05 Oct 2008 17:49:48 +0400, Andrei Alexandrescu  
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:

> KennyTM~ wrote:
>> Michel Fortin wrote:
>>> On 2008-10-05 01:14:17 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu  
>>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> said:
>>>
>>>> I don't favor "." any more than the next guy, but I am glad there is  
>>>> awareness of how unfit a choice "!" is. If you have any ideas, please  
>>>> post them! Ah! I! Exclaimed! Again!
>>>
>>> Hum, I don't think we have much choice, it'll have to be something in  
>>> this lot:
>>>
>>>     Positive!(real)(joke);
>>>     Positive.(real)(joke);
>>>     Positive#(real)(joke);
>>>     Positive@(real)(joke);
>>>     Positive&(real)(joke);
>>>     Positive`(real)(joke);
>>>     Positive´(real)(joke);
>>>     Positive^(real)(joke);
>>>     Positive¨(real)(joke);
>>>     Positive\(real)(joke);
>>>
>>> Anything else I forgot?
>>>
>>> Or we could use special delimiter characters:
>>>
>>>     Positive<real>(joke);
>>>     Positive“real”(joke);
>>>     Positive«real»(joke);
>>>     Positive#real@(joke);
>>>
>>> Each having its own problem though.
>>>
>>> My preference still goes to "!(".
>>>
>>> - - -
>>>
>>> The ".(" syntax makes me think more of something like this:
>>>
>>>     void func(T, alias methodOfT, A...)(T obj, A args)
>>>     {
>>>         obj.(methodOfT)(args);
>>>     }
>>>
>>> which I which I could do. If methodOfT was a string, I suppose I could  
>>> use string mixins, but it pushes diagnostics about misnamed methods  
>>> further in the template and requires adding quotes to the template  
>>> parameter when instanciating.
>>>
>>  Argh, actually I once have a strong desire making
>>    f«T»(x);
>>  a valid construct, and to workaround that « and » can't be easily  
>> typed you could substitute it with
>>    f\<T\>(x);
>>  ---
>
> Yah I would've like French quotes too.
>
>> Anyway, I think the .() syntax is not as good as !() because the . is  
>> pretty hideous before another punctuation mark (which may be a good  
>> thing, I don't know), and one could easily miss it.
>>  And even if .() is allowed, please don't remove !() -- it will break  
>> significantly many code, and it doesn't cause any ambiguity either  
>> (unlike .func() vs .prop).
>
> Many languages have successfully dealt with similar situations by simply  
> allowing both but promoting only one in books and other documentation.  
> Speaking of which, I'm on verge of signing with Addison Wesley Longman  
> for delivering TDPL in April.
>
>
> Andrei

Great news! Your site still says it appears in October, though.