• =?utf-8?Q?Simen_Kj=C3=A6r=C3=A5s?= (19/19) Jan 26 2012 A pattern in D is this:
• Peter Alexander (2/3) Jan 27 2012 What problem does this solve?
• Timon Gehr (7/26) Jan 27 2012 It looks like Yoda speak to me. I don't think it is going to fly. If we
• F i L (6/8) Jan 27 2012 This syntax makes a lot of sense, but why have the '=' at all?
• a (5/14) Jan 27 2012 I guess one reason is that it fits better with the rest of the
• F i L (5/22) Jan 27 2012 Every proposal here would break D, so I'm not sure what you mean
• Timon Gehr (8/30) Jan 27 2012 Because then we have
• F i L (1/2) Jan 27 2012 Ahh I see now, that makes sense.

=?utf-8?Q?Simen_Kj=C3=A6r=C3=A5s?= <simen.kjaras gmail.com> writes:

A pattern in D is this:

alias Foo!q{
     stuffs
} MyFoo;

Where Foo is a templated struct/class. In many ways, this is similar to
defining a new type, and I therefore throw out the suggestion that the
syntax should reflect this. I may be wrong, but I think this syntax is
unused and fitting:

Foo MyFoo!q{
     stuffs
}

This is clearly symmetrical with the definition of normal types:

class MyClass {
}

struct MyStruct {
}

enum MyEnum {
}

Critique? Thoughts?

"Peter Alexander" <peter.alexander.au gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 27 January 2012 at 01:24:54 UTC, Simen Kjærås wrote:
 Critique? Thoughts?

What problem does this solve?

Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:

On 01/27/2012 02:24 AM, Simen Kjærås wrote:
 A pattern in D is this:

 alias Foo!q{
 stuffs
 } MyFoo;

 Where Foo is a templated struct/class. In many ways, this is similar to
 defining a new type, and I therefore throw out the suggestion that the
 syntax should reflect this. I may be wrong, but I think this syntax is
 unused and fitting:

 Foo MyFoo!q{
 stuffs
 }

 This is clearly symmetrical with the definition of normal types:

 class MyClass {
 }

 struct MyStruct {
 }

 enum MyEnum {
 }

 Critique? Thoughts?

It looks like Yoda speak to me. I don't think it is going to fly. If we 
get alias name = othername; as has been suggested a few times, your 
example would look like:

alias MyFoo = Foo!q{

}

Is that good enough?

"F i L" <witte2008 gmail.com> writes:

Timon Gehr wrote:
 alias MyFoo = Foo!q{

 }

This syntax makes a lot of sense, but why have the '=' at all? 
Why not just:

alias Num float;
alias MyFoo Foo!q{

};

"a" <a a.com> writes:

On Friday, 27 January 2012 at 22:02:55 UTC, F i L wrote:
 Timon Gehr wrote:
 alias MyFoo = Foo!q{

 }

 This syntax makes a lot of sense, but why have the '=' at all? 
 Why not just:

 alias Num float;
 alias MyFoo Foo!q{

 };

I guess one reason is that it fits better with the rest of the 
language, it feels more natural. Also, wouldn't your proposal 
require making the current syntax illegal and breaking pretty 
much all of existing D code?

"F i L" <witte2008 gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 27 January 2012 at 22:20:47 UTC, a wrote:
 On Friday, 27 January 2012 at 22:02:55 UTC, F i L wrote:
 Timon Gehr wrote:
 alias MyFoo = Foo!q{

 }

 This syntax makes a lot of sense, but why have the '=' at all? 
 Why not just:

 alias Num float;
 alias MyFoo Foo!q{

 };

 I guess one reason is that it fits better with the rest of the 
 language, it feels more natural. Also, wouldn't your proposal 
 require making the current syntax illegal and breaking pretty 
 much all of existing D code?

Every proposal here would break D, so I'm not sure what you mean 
by "my" proposal. Also, because aliases are non-lvalue 
definitions, I don't think '=' makes a lot of sense, but I'm not 
an expert on the matter.

Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:

On 01/27/2012 11:29 PM, F i L wrote:
 On Friday, 27 January 2012 at 22:20:47 UTC, a wrote:
 On Friday, 27 January 2012 at 22:02:55 UTC, F i L wrote:
 Timon Gehr wrote:
 alias MyFoo = Foo!q{

 }

 This syntax makes a lot of sense, but why have the '=' at all? Why
 not just:

 alias Num float;
 alias MyFoo Foo!q{

 };



Because then we have

alias symbol1 symbol2; which means symbol2 is an alias for symbol1 and
alias symbol1 symbol2!(...) which means symbol1 is an alias for 
symbol2!(...). It does not seem right.

 I guess one reason is that it fits better with the rest of the
 language, it feels more natural. Also, wouldn't your proposal require
 making the current syntax illegal and breaking pretty much all of
 existing D code?

 Every proposal here would break D, so I'm not sure what you mean by "my"
 proposal. Also, because aliases are non-lvalue definitions, I don't
 think '=' makes a lot of sense, but I'm not an expert on the matter.

No, they are all additive and backwards-compatible changes. (the old 
syntax would persist as an alternative) And in D the lhs of a = 
initializer is not required to be an lvalue anyway: enum x = 1;

"F i L" <witte2008 gmail.com> writes:

 No, they are all additive and backwards-compatible changes.

Ahh I see now, that makes sense.