digitalmars.D - especially for..
- xs0 (22/22) Mar 31 2005 I propose some new syntax sugar:
- Walter (1/1) Mar 31 2005 Actually, it's not a bad idea at all. I like it.
- Chris Sauls (5/6) Mar 31 2005 *faints*
- Regan Heath (18/19) Mar 31 2005 On this subject, I noticed this the other day:
- Jarrett Billingsley (2/4) Mar 31 2005 Ooh, would that cut down on declaring dumb temp values before conditiona...
- Tom S (10/10) Mar 31 2005 // shameless plug:
- Lionello Lunesu (4/14) Mar 31 2005 Mentioned before, and still a good idea.. Got my vote.
- Alejandro Lapeyre (10/30) Apr 01 2005 no,no,no,no
- Tom S (33/62) Apr 01 2005 o_0
I propose some new syntax sugar:
if (int result=blah()) {}
while (int result=blah()) {}
I mean, why is declaring new variables limited to for() and foreach()?
The problem is not merely more typing, but also scoping. If you want to
make sure a var is not used after a while loop, you have to do it like:
while(1) {
int result=blah();
if (!result) break;
}
or, even uglier:
{int result;
while (result=blah()) {
..;
}}
which doesn't even work, because it says that = doesn't produce a boolean...
if ((int value=blah())>maximum_allowed)
error("Value above maximum", value);
else
success("All right", value);
Wouldn't this be nice? :)
xs0
Mar 31 2005
Actually, it's not a bad idea at all. I like it.
Mar 31 2005
Chris Sauls <ibisbasenji gmail.com> Walter wrote:Actually, it's not a bad idea at all. I like it.*faints* ... Just joking. -- Chris Sauls
Mar 31 2005
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:37:37 -0800, Walter <newshound digitalmars.com> wrote:Actually, it's not a bad idea at all. I like it.On this subject, I noticed this the other day: void main() { int a; int b; for(a = b, int i = 5; true; i++) {} } declaring the 'int' after a ',' is not allowed. Should it be? can it be? I realise in most cases you can reverse the order and declare the int first. In the case I had the int was assigned to 'a' in other words the result of the first part (so it needed to be done first). I resolved this by moving the "a = b" to outside the for loop. So, it's not a big problem, but it would be "nice". Regan
Mar 31 2005
"xs0" <xs0 xs0.com> wrote in message news:d2gsnq$une$1 digitaldaemon.com...
if (int result=blah()) {}
while (int result=blah()) {}
Ooh, would that cut down on declaring dumb temp values before conditionals..
Mar 31 2005
// shameless plug:
Lemme remind another proposal - regarding do .. while, so that the
following code would be valid:
do {
int x = getchar();
} while (x != 'x');
Basically the scope of the variables declared inside the block wouldn't
end with the '}' but with the ';' after 'while'.
--
Tomasz Stachowiak /+ a.k.a. h3r3tic +/
Mar 31 2005
Mentioned before, and still a good idea.. Got my vote.
L.
"Tom S" <h3r3tic remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> wrote in message
news:d2hnr4$1sqn$1 digitaldaemon.com...
// shameless plug:
Lemme remind another proposal - regarding do .. while, so that the
following code would be valid:
do {
int x = getchar();
} while (x != 'x');
Basically the scope of the variables declared inside the block wouldn't
end with the '}' but with the ';' after 'while'.
--
Tomasz Stachowiak /+ a.k.a. h3r3tic +/
Mar 31 2005
no,no,no,no A bracket is a bracket. You use brackets because you want to delimit a phrase, an idea. You can not be allowed to refer to an object that is declared in brackets from outside the brackets, it is out of scope. It is like (I do have a dog) saying it likes peanuts. Best Regards, Alejandro Lapeyre "Lionello Lunesu" <lio lunesu.removethis.com> escribió en el mensaje news:d2iomk$2vi2$1 digitaldaemon.com...Mentioned before, and still a good idea.. Got my vote. L. "Tom S" <h3r3tic remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> wrote in message news:d2hnr4$1sqn$1 digitaldaemon.com...// shameless plug: Lemme remind another proposal - regarding do .. while, so that the following code would be valid: do { int x = getchar(); } while (x != 'x'); Basically the scope of the variables declared inside the block wouldn't end with the '}' but with the ';' after 'while'. -- Tomasz Stachowiak /+ a.k.a. h3r3tic +/
Apr 01 2005
Alejandro Lapeyre wrote:no,no,no,no A bracket is a bracket. You use brackets because you want to delimit a phrase, an idea. You can not be allowed to refer to an object that is declared in brackets from outside the brackets, it is out of scope. It is like (I do have a dog) saying it likes peanuts.o_0 It's not about allowing the names from the inner scope to be accessed somewhere far from the 'brackets', but in the while() 'phrase' following the block, which is logically connected to the block of code it encapsulates. With the proposal this is valid: do { int x = getchar(); } while (x != 'x'); But this is still invalid: do { int x = getchar(); } while (x != 'x'); x = 1; // Can't see x here It's only about extending the inner scope to the parentheses of the 'do .. while' loop's condition test. And it actually supports the concept of enclosing the 'idea' or 'phrase' as you call it, so that you don't have to define dummy variables like: int x; do { x = getchar(); } while (x != 'x'); // x accessible here and be forced to put them in another brace pairs in order not to spoil the namespace: { int x; do { x = getchar(); } while (x != 'x'); }"Lionello Lunesu" <lio lunesu.removethis.com> escribió en el mensaje news:d2iomk$2vi2$1 digitaldaemon.com...-- Tomasz Stachowiak /+ a.k.a. h3r3tic +/Mentioned before, and still a good idea.. Got my vote. L. "Tom S" <h3r3tic remove.mat.uni.torun.pl> wrote in message news:d2hnr4$1sqn$1 digitaldaemon.com...// shameless plug: Lemme remind another proposal - regarding do .. while, so that the following code would be valid: do { int x = getchar(); } while (x != 'x'); Basically the scope of the variables declared inside the block wouldn't end with the '}' but with the ';' after 'while'.
Apr 01 2005