foo!(bar) ==> foo{bar} ==> foo[bar] (just Brackets)

[KennyTM~]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 6:59 AM, Robert Fraser
> <fraserofthenight at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Don wrote:
>>> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>>>> Jason House wrote:
>>>>> Bruno Medeiros wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Don wrote:
>>>>>>> Denis Koroskin wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 18:22:21 +0400, superdan <super at dan.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Walter Bright Wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dee Girl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I did not follow this group recent. School started. Sorry! I just
>>>>>>>>>>> see now and please add my vote if possible. I start with D recent
>>>>>>>>>>> and I remember beginning. foo!(bar) was not pleasant. Like forced
>>>>>>>>>>> convention with a bad char. And friends I show code never like it.
>>>>>>>>>>> It is first thing they say why they do not like D. For me foo{bar}
>>>>>>>>>>> better idea. Thank you, Dee Girl
>>>>>>>>>> What do your friends think of { } ?
>>>>>>>>> School started. Every one so busy now. But I think does not matter
>>>>>>>>> any more ^_^
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I want to make little idea. Sorry if idea mentioned before (I did
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> read every thread). I think we can look square brackets []. Let me
>>>>>>>>> explain why.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Paren () is over used in C and in D. Any expression can be in ().
>>>>>>>>> And
>>>>>>>>> adding () is possible in many cases. But it is not same with []. For
>>>>>>>>> example a:(b) is ambiguous but a:[b] is not. So there are many signs
>>>>>>>>> possible after symbol and before [. They are:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ~ ! @ # $ % ^ & * - + = | \ / , < . > ? :
>>>>>>> Not all of them work. Here's a few examples:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>    enum { d= 3, e = 7 }
>>>>>>>    int [] a=[1,2];
>>>>>>>    bool c;
>>>>>>>    auto k=[e]; // kills =
>>>>>>>    a ~= c?[d]:[e]; // kills ?
>>>>>>>    int [] f = c?k:[e]; // kills :
>>>>>>>    if (f>[e]) {}   // kills <
>>>>>>>    if (f<[e]) {}   // kills >
>>>>>>>    auto g = (k,[d]); // kills comma
>>>>>>>    auto h = k~[d]; // kills ~
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Array ops will kill + - * / & | % ^
>>>>>>> Suddenly the list looks pretty short.
>>>>>>> !@#$\.
>>>>>> Hum, what about brackets without any prefix character at all?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   Vector[int, 2] foo;
>>>>>>   List[Vector[int, 2]] bar;
>>>>>>   int[3] a = [1, 2, 3]; // array literal here
>>>>>>   int[int] map;
>>>>>>   alias DenseMatrix[num] PulType;
>>>>>>   alias SparseRowsMatrix[num, HashSparseVector] PuuType;
>>>>>>   alias BiMap[uint, Tuple[uint, uint], BiMapOptions.lhDense] DicType;
>>>>>>   int var = a[2]; // array indexing here
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hum... doesn't look bad visually. In fact it seems to fit quite nice
>>>>>> with how associative arrays, and even normal arrays, are declared. Hum,
>>>>>> yes, I'm personally liking this a lot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But does it have any ambiguities? Hum, can't think of any off-hand. If
>>>>>> an identifier appears before a bracket list, it could either be a
>>>>>> template instantiation, or an array indexation. But the syntax of both
>>>>>> is the same, so it doesn't need to be distinguished in the parser.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Waddya think, was this discussed before?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It may be easy to parse, but it isn't easy to read.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is goban[19]?  Is it an array or a template?  I'd hate to be
>>>>> reading
>>>>> through somebody else's code and have to decipher what things mean.
>>>> I give the same answer I gave to Bill:
>>>>
>>>> True, you'd have to follow /goban/ to find out. But that is just a hover
>>>> of the mouse away. :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Just for the record, I'm also not bothered by !(), but if some people
>>>> really find the urge to change it, I'd much rather have brackets than the
>>>> ugly sad pirate. I say ugly because the dot is much more common than the
>>>> '!', and for me it has a more solidified meaning of accessing members, so
>>>> seeing it used as part of the template instantiation syntax looks weird.
>>>>
>>> That's my opinion, too.
>>>
>>> Using square brackets would certainly fit with Walter's goal of making
>>> templates less threatening for newcomers.
>>> It would be pretty cool to teach a newbie:
>>>
>>> int[] a;
>>> int[double] b;  // this is an AA
>>> priorityqueue[double] c; // this is a template
>> I can't tell if you're being sarcastic here or not...
> 
> I couldn't tell either.  To me sounds about as cool as having to teach
> C newbies about all the different meanings of "static".
> 
> --bb

See? The syntax is so confusing that not only array & templates but even 
sarcasm can't be differentiated :). [sarcasm]

Anyway I think it's no good to modify the !() syntax without 
backward-compatibility because it is rooted in almost all D code 
already; and if both [] & !() are allowed it would just cause more 
confusion, isn't it.

I think the opposition of !() is a by-product of .() being announced.

Let's move on to some real issue...