• Jerry (9/9) Jul 17 2013 Hi folks,
• Simen Kjaeraas (6/13) Jul 18 2013 It's how I write my operator overloads unless the function should match
• Marco Leise (6/21) Jul 19 2013 I write it like that, too. It's more readable with the "in"

Jerry <jlquinn optonline.net> writes:

Hi folks,

I was looking at writing a hash-like class with a specific operator and
disliking the syntax of:

T opBinary(string op)(U key) if (op == "in") {}

When it occurred to me that it could be simply tightened up as:

T opBinary(string op : "in")(U key) {}

Any thoughts?  Is this bad style?

Thanks
Jerry

"Simen Kjaeraas" <simen.kjaras gmail.com> writes:

On 2013-07-18, 04:50, Jerry wrote:

 Hi folks,

 I was looking at writing a hash-like class with a specific operator and
 disliking the syntax of:

 T opBinary(string op)(U key) if (op == "in") {}

 When it occurred to me that it could be simply tightened up as:

 T opBinary(string op : "in")(U key) {}

 Any thoughts?  Is this bad style?

It's how I write my operator overloads unless the function should match
several of them.

So no, I think it's good style. But that's just, like, my opinion, man.

--
  Simen

Marco Leise <Marco.Leise gmx.de> writes:

Am Wed, 17 Jul 2013 22:50:09 -0400
schrieb Jerry <jlquinn optonline.net>:

 Hi folks,
 
 I was looking at writing a hash-like class with a specific operator and
 disliking the syntax of:
 
 T opBinary(string op)(U key) if (op == "in") {}
 
 When it occurred to me that it could be simply tightened up as:
 
 T opBinary(string op : "in")(U key) {}
 
 Any thoughts?  Is this bad style?
 
 Thanks
 Jerry

I write it like that, too. It's more readable with the "in"
closer to the method name.

-- 
Marco