• Charles (10/10) Aug 16 2006 Just wanted to suggest that auto ( the auto that means destroy on scope
• Charles (5/17) Aug 17 2006 Actually a further revision , based on an archived post I think this syn...
• renox (19/40) Aug 17 2006 If memory serves, Walter current view is:
• Charles (3/57) Aug 18 2006 I like that idea!
• Jarrett Billingsley (5/10) Aug 18 2006 I don't know why he likes that syntax. He's a big opponent of
• Charles (4/18) Aug 18 2006 I agree, it certainly is easy to miss. I imagine he doesn't want to

Charles <noone nowhere.com> writes:

Just wanted to suggest that auto ( the auto that means destroy on scope 
exit ) , be renamed to raii , or anything that eliminates the double 
meaning of 'auto'.  I know auto in C was used to mean something similar, 
but C has no automatic-type-deduction named auto, and the current 
situation in D prevents one from doing an auto(type-deduction) 
auto(destroy) declaration, as in : auto auto a = new MyClass;

Thx!  It is only an aesthetic change I know but I think it will add a 
lot to the general flow of the language, as well as allow type deduced 
raii variable declaration.

Charlie

Charles <nonone nowhere.com> writes:

Actually a further revision , based on an archived post I think this syntax:

MyClass c = local MyClass();

works better.  It looks good, and is very explicit.  'local' can be 
replaced with 'raii' , 'stack' or whatever you like.

Charles wrote:
 Just wanted to suggest that auto ( the auto that means destroy on scope 
 exit ) , be renamed to raii , or anything that eliminates the double 
 meaning of 'auto'.  I know auto in C was used to mean something similar, 
 but C has no automatic-type-deduction named auto, and the current 
 situation in D prevents one from doing an auto(type-deduction) 
 auto(destroy) declaration, as in : auto auto a = new MyClass;
 
 Thx!  It is only an aesthetic change I know but I think it will add a 
 lot to the general flow of the language, as well as allow type deduced 
 raii variable declaration.
 
 Charlie

renox <renosky free.fr> writes:

Charles wrote:
 Actually a further revision , based on an archived post I think this 
 syntax:
 
 MyClass c = local MyClass();

If memory serves, Walter current view is:
a) For stack variable MyClass c = MyClass(); or auto c = MyClass();
and
b) For global variable MyClass c = new MyClass(); or auto c = new MyClass();

I'm not sure what is the benefit replacing a) by
MyClass c = local MyClass(); or auto c = local MyClass(); for stack 
variable?

What would be the meaning of 'MyClass c = MyClass();', the global case, 
dropping the new? Forbiddeb? Or something else?

RenoX

PS:
just some advertising for my own view: replacing 'auto' by a ':=' 
operator for type deduction (I liked too much Limbo syntax probably), 
which would make:
1) for stack variable  c := MyClass(); (of course MyClass c = MyClass(); 
would still work)
2) for global variable c := new MyClass(); (of course MyClass c = new 
MyClass(); would still work).


 works better.  It looks good, and is very explicit.  'local' can be 
 replaced with 'raii' , 'stack' or whatever you like.
 
 Charles wrote:
 
 Just wanted to suggest that auto ( the auto that means destroy on 
 scope exit ) , be renamed to raii , or anything that eliminates the 
 double meaning of 'auto'.  I know auto in C was used to mean something 
 similar, but C has no automatic-type-deduction named auto, and the 
 current situation in D prevents one from doing an auto(type-deduction) 
 auto(destroy) declaration, as in : auto auto a = new MyClass;

 Thx!  It is only an aesthetic change I know but I think it will add a 
 lot to the general flow of the language, as well as allow type deduced 
 raii variable declaration.

 Charlie

Charles <nonone nowhere.com> writes:

 If memory serves, Walter current view is:

Oh ok, Im anxious to see that change happen then :).

 1) for stack variable  c := MyClass(); (of course MyClass c = MyClass();
 would still work)
 2) for global variable c := new MyClass(); (of course MyClass c = new
 MyClass(); would still work).

I like that idea!


renox wrote:
 Charles wrote:
 Actually a further revision , based on an archived post I think this 
 syntax:

 MyClass c = local MyClass();

 
 If memory serves, Walter current view is:
 a) For stack variable MyClass c = MyClass(); or auto c = MyClass();
 and
 b) For global variable MyClass c = new MyClass(); or auto c = new 
 MyClass();
 
 I'm not sure what is the benefit replacing a) by
 MyClass c = local MyClass(); or auto c = local MyClass(); for stack 
 variable?
 
 What would be the meaning of 'MyClass c = MyClass();', the global case, 
 dropping the new? Forbiddeb? Or something else?
 
 RenoX
 
 PS:
 just some advertising for my own view: replacing 'auto' by a ':=' 
 operator for type deduction (I liked too much Limbo syntax probably), 
 which would make:
 1) for stack variable  c := MyClass(); (of course MyClass c = MyClass(); 
 would still work)
 2) for global variable c := new MyClass(); (of course MyClass c = new 
 MyClass(); would still work).
 
 
 works better.  It looks good, and is very explicit.  'local' can be 
 replaced with 'raii' , 'stack' or whatever you like.

 Charles wrote:

 Just wanted to suggest that auto ( the auto that means destroy on 
 scope exit ) , be renamed to raii , or anything that eliminates the 
 double meaning of 'auto'.  I know auto in C was used to mean 
 something similar, but C has no automatic-type-deduction named auto, 
 and the current situation in D prevents one from doing an 
 auto(type-deduction) auto(destroy) declaration, as in : auto auto a = 
 new MyClass;

 Thx!  It is only an aesthetic change I know but I think it will add a 
 lot to the general flow of the language, as well as allow type 
 deduced raii variable declaration.

 Charlie

"Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:

"renox" <renosky free.fr> wrote in message 
news:ec2of6$2rj6$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 If memory serves, Walter current view is:
 a) For stack variable MyClass c = MyClass(); or auto c = MyClass();
 and
 b) For global variable MyClass c = new MyClass(); or auto c = new 
 MyClass();

I don't know why he likes that syntax.  He's a big opponent of 
"easy-to-mess-up" syntax, and I sure can't see much of a difference between 
"c = MyClass()" and "c = new MyClass()". 

Charles <nonone nowhere.com> writes:

I agree, it certainly is easy to miss.  I imagine he doesn't want to 
introduce a new keyword for it , but renox's syntax of := I think is an 
elegant solution !



Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
 "renox" <renosky free.fr> wrote in message 
 news:ec2of6$2rj6$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
 If memory serves, Walter current view is:
 a) For stack variable MyClass c = MyClass(); or auto c = MyClass();
 and
 b) For global variable MyClass c = new MyClass(); or auto c = new 
 MyClass();

 
 I don't know why he likes that syntax.  He's a big opponent of 
 "easy-to-mess-up" syntax, and I sure can't see much of a difference between 
 "c = MyClass()" and "c = new MyClass()".