How about appender.put() with var args?

[John Colvin via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 15 April 2015 at 20:59:25 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> On 4/15/15 4:51 PM, Messenger wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 15 April 2015 at 19:09:42 UTC, Márcio Martins 
>> wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> I use Appender a lot, and find it ugly to write this all the 
>>> time to
>>> efficiently construct strings:
>>>
>>> app.put("foo");
>>> app.put(var);
>>> app.put("bar");
>>>
>>
>> Sidetracking a bit, but when I started using Appender I was 
>> surprised to
>> see that put didn't return a reference to the Appender itself. 
>> Had it
>> done so, you could have chained your put calls very nicely.
>>
>> app.put("foo")
>>    .put(var)
>>    .put("bar")
>>    .put(more)
>>    .put("stuff");
>>
>> You can naturally write a small wrapper function that does 
>> this for you,
>> but it still strikes me as odd. Sadly I imagine changing the 
>> return type
>> would make the function signature mangle differently, breaking 
>> ABI
>> compatibility.
>
> with(app)
> {
>    put(var);
>    put("bar");
>    put(more);
>    put("stuff");
> }
>
> -Steve

With all the excitement about chaining and ufcs, the with 
statement is often overlooked.