Parenthesis around if/for/while condition is not necessary
Basile B.
b2.temp at gmx.com
Sun Jun 24 11:27:12 UTC 2018
On Saturday, 23 June 2018 at 06:24:29 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
> On Saturday, 23 June 2018 at 06:18:53 UTC, user1234 wrote:
>> On Saturday, 23 June 2018 at 05:09:13 UTC, aedt wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 23 June 2018 at 04:45:07 UTC, user1234 wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, 23 June 2018 at 01:27:30 UTC, aedt wrote:
>>>>> for line in stdin.lines() {}
>>>>>
>>>>> if condition {}
>>>>>
>>>>> while condition {}
>>>>>
>>>>> for init; condition; op {}
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What's the rationale of keeping the requirement that the
>>>>> condition of if/for/while must be wrapped with a
>>>>> parenthesis (other than keeping parser simple)? Modern
>>>>> languages have already dropped this requirement (i.e. Rust,
>>>>> Nim) and I don't see any reason not to do so.
>>>>
>>>> There is this case that requires parens:
>>>>
>>>> if a && b c;
>>>>
>>>> Is there a missing && or not ? It seems obvious for a human
>>>> but compiler parsers are "apparatchiks", i.e rules are
>>>> rules. That being said this would work by allowing parens
>>>> for disambiguation.
>>>
>>> Same thing as the following"
>>> return a && b;
>>>
>>> I'm not saying to drop parens completely, I'm saying why is
>>> it not optional. D seems to have no problem with x.to!string
>>> or std.lines
>>
>> I agree that this would be in adequation with certain stuff of
>> the D syntax, such as parens-less single template parameter.
>> Someone has to make a DIP for this
>
> Maybe but this is a simple parser thing. For example after
> reading the discussion here i have tested the idea in my toy
> programming language
> (https://github.com/BBasile/styx/commit/83c96d8a789aa82f9bed254ab342ffc4aed4fd88) and i believe that for D this would be as simple ( < 20 SLOC, w/o the tests).
>
>> otherwise we're good for one of this sterile NG discussion
>> leading to nothing, i.e intellectual mast... well guess the
>> word.
>
> I'm tempted to try this in DMDFE. Change is simple enough so
> that if it get rejected no much time is lost.
FYI this works fine, as expected it's just some small parser
changes.
I didn't touch to for and foreach for now. I think that
SwitchStatement is a candidate too.
https://github.com/BBasile/dmd/commit/5455a65c8fdee5a6d198782d1f168906b59e6d3d
However note that there's a nice thing with the phobos style that
won't be that nice anymore:
if (condition)
action();
----^
if condition)
action();
---^
----^
It's not nicely aligned anymore !
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list