Alternative typeof syntax
Nick Sabalausky
a at a.a
Mon May 17 16:18:54 PDT 2010
"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS at lycos.com> wrote in message
news:hss6b6$aep$1 at digitalmars.com...
> What do you think about the the syntax x.typeof instead of typeof(x) ?
> There are situations where you will need to parenthesize anyway, for
> example:
>
> import std.stdio;
> void main() {
> int x = 1;
> float y = 1.5;
> writeln(typeid(typeof(x + y)));
> }
>
> You have to write:
> (x + y).typeof
>
> But in many situations you don't need the ().
> And it gets more similar/uniform to the x.sizeof syntax too (that is
> sizeof(x) in C).
>
vote++
Anything that reduces parenthesis-hell without inviting ambiguities in
either the compiler or the "human-eye parser" is good by me :)
Besides, I love member access syntax in general. In addition to (safely)
reducing parenthesis, it also sidesteps the oddity that nested function
calls are written/read *backwards* from the order of execution (ie,
"A(B(C()))" means "call C, then B, then A"). I've even been toying with the
idea of a language design that places primary emphasis on member-call syntax
and consistent left-to-right ordering.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list