digitalmars.D - C++17 Init statement for if/switch
- Daniel Kozak (9/9) Aug 15 2017 C++17 will have this feature:
- Daniel Kozak (10/20) Aug 15 2017 this would be rewrite to
- Daniel Kozak (2/19) Aug 15 2017 int func() { return 5; }
- Daniel Kozak (3/4) Aug 15 2017 int func() return 5;
- ag0aep6g (8/22) Aug 15 2017 Previous discussion:
- Jonathan Marler (17/41) Aug 15 2017 I wouldn't mind writing a DIP but I haven't seen enough benefit
- bachmeier (6/8) Aug 15 2017 That is correct. After a while it gets tiring to see a
- Joakim (8/18) Aug 16 2017 +1, though I'd go for bug-fixing over IDEs. It was ridiculous
- Guillaume Boucher (6/11) Aug 16 2017 I like that. Feature freeze D until *all* bug reports are closed.
- SrMordred (5/14) Aug 16 2017 There are two thinks of c++ that I miss a little on D:
C++17 will have this feature: https://tech.io/playgrounds/2205/7-features-of-c17-that-will-simplify-your-code/init-statement-for-ifswitch What do you think about it, can we have something similar to that. Maybe something like this: int func() return 5; with(auto x = func()) if (condition(x)) do_something_with(x); else do_something_else_with(x);
Aug 15 2017
On Tuesday, 15 August 2017 at 18:55:57 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:C++17 will have this feature: https://tech.io/playgrounds/2205/7-features-of-c17-that-will-simplify-your-code/init-statement-for-ifswitch What do you think about it, can we have something similar to that. Maybe something like this: int func() return 5; with(auto x = func()) if (condition(x)) do_something_with(x); else do_something_else_with(x);this would be rewrite to int func() return 5; { auto x = func(); if (condition(x)) do_something_with(x); else do_something_else_with(x); }
Aug 15 2017
On Tuesday, 15 August 2017 at 19:04:32 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:On Tuesday, 15 August 2017 at 18:55:57 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:int func() { return 5; }C++17 will have this feature: int func() return 5; with(auto x = func()) if (condition(x)) do_something_with(x); else do_something_else_with(x);this would be rewrite to int func() return 5; { auto x = func(); if (condition(x)) do_something_with(x); else do_something_else_with(x); }
Aug 15 2017
Daniel Kozak <kozzi11 gmail.com>
On Tuesday, 15 August 2017 at 19:24:00 UTC, Daniel Kozak wrote:
int func() { return 5; }
int func() return 5;
was a typo in all my previous posts :)
Aug 15 2017
On 08/15/2017 08:55 PM, Daniel Kozak wrote:C++17 will have this feature: https://tech.io/playgrounds/2205/7-features-of-c17-that-will-simplify-your-code/init-st tement-for-ifswitch What do you think about it, can we have something similar to that. Maybe something like this: int func() return 5; with(auto x = func()) if (condition(x)) do_something_with(x); else do_something_else_with(x);Previous discussion: http://forum.dlang.org/post/vfjlpvpwuyfqoljvpkkw forum.dlang.org Andrei doesn't like the C++ way, but he seems to be ok with the `with` way: http://forum.dlang.org/post/oktru0$159b$1 digitalmars.com Walter didn't comment. I think this has a good chance of getting in, but someone will have to write a DIP and implement it.
Aug 15 2017
On Tuesday, 15 August 2017 at 20:17:40 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:On 08/15/2017 08:55 PM, Daniel Kozak wrote:I wouldn't mind writing a DIP but I haven't seen enough benefit to warrant the change yet. I grep'd for 'if' statements in a couple phobos modules and didn't see too many places it could be used there. The syntax does remind me of Andrei's scoped imports proposal: with(import std.stdio : File) void foo(File file) { //... } I think if that proposal gets accepted it would be a natural extension to allow both imports and declarations inside a 'with' expression and it would get more exposure/usage among the greater community. Without alot of usage, it will just be an esoteric construct that looks confusing to the average developer. So I guess it depends on whether or not you think it would gain widespread adoption?C++17 will have this feature: https://tech.io/playgrounds/2205/7-features-of-c17-that-will-simplify-your-code/init-statement-for-ifswitch What do you think about it, can we have something similar to that. Maybe something like this: int func() return 5; with(auto x = func()) if (condition(x)) do_something_with(x); else do_something_else_with(x);Previous discussion: http://forum.dlang.org/post/vfjlpvpwuyfqoljvpkkw forum.dlang.org Andrei doesn't like the C++ way, but he seems to be ok with the `with` way: http://forum.dlang.org/post/oktru0$159b$1 digitalmars.com Walter didn't comment. I think this has a good chance of getting in, but someone will have to write a DIP and implement it.
Aug 15 2017
On Tuesday, 15 August 2017 at 20:31:50 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:Without alot of usage, it will just be an esoteric construct that looks confusing to the average developer.That is correct. After a while it gets tiring to see a neverending stream of complexity added to the language while things that would actually help (like IDE support) do not get any attention. As a general rule, if it's being added to C++, it's probably a bad idea.
Aug 15 2017
On Tuesday, 15 August 2017 at 21:05:09 UTC, bachmeier wrote:On Tuesday, 15 August 2017 at 20:31:50 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:+1, though I'd go for bug-fixing over IDEs. It was ridiculous that we were spending time discussing a marginal feature like scoping imports for module-scope template constraints, ie DIP 1005, when normal scoped and selective imports are not used that much yet, as evidenced by latent bugs like this symbol leak: https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17630Without alot of usage, it will just be an esoteric construct that looks confusing to the average developer.That is correct. After a while it gets tiring to see a neverending stream of complexity added to the language while things that would actually help (like IDE support) do not get any attention.As a general rule, if it's being added to C++, it's probably a bad idea.Lol. :D
Aug 16 2017
On Wednesday, 16 August 2017 at 12:58:03 UTC, Joakim wrote:I like that. Feature freeze D until *all* bug reports are closed. While that would mean no more features for several years, I think it would benefit the language in the long run, both internally (less discussions about incorrect behavior) and externally (D is a mature and stable language).That is correct. After a while it gets tiring to see a neverending stream of complexity added to the language while things that would actually help (like IDE support) do not get any attention.+1, though I'd go for bug-fixing over IDEs.
Aug 16 2017
On Wednesday, 16 August 2017 at 13:40:47 UTC, Guillaume Boucher wrote:I like that. Feature freeze D until *all* bug reports are closed. While that would mean no more features for several years, I think it would benefit the language in the long run, both internally (less discussions about incorrect behavior) and externally (D is a mature and stable language).Seems a bit much. How about new features can only be added in one of every N releases (Where N > 1)?
Aug 16 2017
On Wednesday, 16 August 2017 at 13:40:47 UTC, Guillaume Boucher wrote:On Wednesday, 16 August 2017 at 12:58:03 UTC, Joakim wrote:You'd see a fork.I like that. Feature freeze D until *all* bug reports are closed. While that would mean no more features for several years, I think it would benefit the language in the long run, both internally (less discussions about incorrect behavior) and externally (D is a mature and stable language).That is correct. After a while it gets tiring to see a neverending stream of complexity added to the language while things that would actually help (like IDE support) do not get any attention.+1, though I'd go for bug-fixing over IDEs.
Aug 16 2017
On Tuesday, 15 August 2017 at 21:05:09 UTC, bachmeier wrote:On Tuesday, 15 August 2017 at 20:31:50 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:There are two thinks of c++ that I miss a little on D: - Structured binding - Uniform initialization But in general, I agreed with you.Without alot of usage, it will just be an esoteric construct that looks confusing to the average developer.That is correct. After a while it gets tiring to see a neverending stream of complexity added to the language while things that would actually help (like IDE support) do not get any attention. As a general rule, if it's being added to C++, it's probably a bad idea.
Aug 16 2017
On Wednesday, 16 August 2017 at 14:19:59 UTC, SrMordred wrote:On Tuesday, 15 August 2017 at 21:05:09 UTC, bachmeier wrote:Initialization in D is pretty uniform now though. What corners am I missing? It's usually: <type-or-infer> name = <constructor>(args); Structured bindings... I think C++ did it badly, actually. They had the {...} syntax fr object construction that worked everywhere and using the same for deconstruction would've allowed for quite natural tuples, which manifest almost as language-level constructs by then (with the help of 'auto' in template parameters).On Tuesday, 15 August 2017 at 20:31:50 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:There are two thinks of c++ that I miss a little on D: - Structured binding - Uniform initialization But in general, I agreed with you.Without alot of usage, it will just be an esoteric construct that looks confusing to the average developer.That is correct. After a while it gets tiring to see a neverending stream of complexity added to the language while things that would actually help (like IDE support) do not get any attention. As a general rule, if it's being added to C++, it's probably a bad idea.
Aug 17 2017
On Thursday, 17 August 2017 at 13:11:51 UTC, Enamex wrote:On Wednesday, 16 August 2017 at 14:19:59 UTC, SrMordred wrote:Nothing too serious, just miss somethings like: void add_vec( vec2 a, vec2 b ); add_vec( {10,20}, {20,30} );On Tuesday, 15 August 2017 at 21:05:09 UTC, bachmeier wrote:Initialization in D is pretty uniform now though. What corners am I missing? It's usually: <type-or-infer> name = <constructor>(args); Structured bindings... I think C++ did it badly, actually. They had the {...} syntax fr object construction that worked everywhere and using the same for deconstruction would've allowed for quite natural tuples, which manifest almost as language-level constructs by then (with the help of 'auto' in template parameters).[...]There are two thinks of c++ that I miss a little on D: - Structured binding - Uniform initialization But in general, I agreed with you.
Aug 17 2017