foo!(bar) ==> foo{bar}

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:gcg4bs$kq5$1 at digitalmars.com...
> "Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote
>> Leandro Lucarella wrote:
>>> Jarrett Billingsley, el  6 de octubre a las 16:04 me escribiste:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Walter Bright
>>>> <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>>>> The foo.(bar) syntax seems to be sinking. The foo{bar} seems to be the 
>>>>> most
>>>>> practical alternative. So, how about putting it in the next D2 release 
>>>>> on a
>>>>> trial basis, so people can try it out and see how it looks?
>>>>>
>>>> I guess it's OK but I still don't see why anything has to change.
>>>> There are much bigger fish to fry.
>>>
>>> Amen!
>>
>> New/potential users are big fish. There has been quite a bit of opinion 
>> that the Slashed-Eye Sad Guy is offputting at least at first.
>
> You might be misinterpreting how people on this NG have responded.  Here 
> is my anecdote (or at least what I can remember) when I first encountered 
> D templates.
>
> I'm reading through the spec, and I get to templates, and they are 
> specified with !().  My first reaction is, well that's dumb, why buck the 
> trend?  C++, Java, C#, they all use <>, what gives?  Then I read the 
> reasoning and I totally understand it.  From that point on, !() looks sooo 
> much better to me than <>.  Never once did I not like the choice of !, it 
> was all just a knee-jerk reaction to why Walter didn't choose something 
> that looks the same as C++, especially when there are so many cases of him 
> copying C++ syntax. It could have been @() or {} and I still would have 
> reacted the same.
>
> My expectation for a new user to D is:
>
> 1. The user comes from a Java/C++/C#/etc. background and has the same 
> initial reaction I had.  Then, depending on their personality, they get 
> defensively angry or say, 'oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense!' and are 
> done with it.  I'm guessing the latter would be more common.
>
> 2. They have no background in templates, and they say 'What's a template?'
>
> Now, change the template syntax to {} or @() or whatever (clearly not <>, 
> as there are technical problems with it):
>
> 1. User comes from Java/C++/C#/etc., has the same initial reaction 'Why is 
> this different?  Why make things different than C++ or whatever since 
> everything else looks like C++?', then they read the explanation and 
> either get defensively angry, or grasp the reasoning and move on.  Again, 
> guessing the latter will be more common.
>
> 2. They have no background in templates, and they say 'What's a template?'
>
> Bottom line, I believe it matters not in the least what syntax is used. 
> Templates are a hard concept to grasp to those who have never used them, 
> regardless of the syntax.
>
> Just my view.  Note I can't speak for others that said they were put off 
> by the !() syntax, but at least that's how I interpreted what they meant.
>
> -Steve

My only problem with "foo!()" is that I've had a hard time getting myself to 
visually associate the "!" with the "()" instead of the "foo".  Ie, I look 
at "foo!()" and I immediately think "foo!" and "()" instead of "foo" and 
"!()". That said, I really can't decide whether I think it should be changed 
to "foo{}" or whether it's just not a big enough deal to bother changing.