www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Idea for getting rid of "static" on methods

reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Nobody likes how overused static is, so here's an idea for a syntax to 
replace it in one place where it is frequently seen.

Here it goes:

    (with out this) int my_method() {...}

badum -ching!

--bb
Nov 30 2007
next sibling parent reply "Craig Black" <cblack ara.com> writes:
"Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote in message 
news:fipjds$cft$1 digitalmars.com...

 Nobody likes how overused static is, so here's an idea for a syntax to 
 replace it in one place where it is frequently seen.

 Here it goes:

    (with out this) int my_method() {...}

 badum -ching!

 --bb


What are you joking about?  Did someone suggest getting rid of static?
Nov 30 2007
next sibling parent "Janice Caron" <caron800 googlemail.com> writes:
On 11/30/07, Craig Black <cblack ara.com> wrote:

 What are you joking about?


I'm sure he's joking. He's figured out that "with", "out" and "this"
are all keywords, and when put together make a readable phrase. :)
It's really quite clever, but I'd be surprised if it was a serious
suggestion.
Nov 30 2007
prev sibling parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Craig Black wrote:

 "Bill Baxter" <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> wrote in message 
 news:fipjds$cft$1 digitalmars.com...

 Nobody likes how overused static is, so here's an idea for a syntax to 
 replace it in one place where it is frequently seen.

 Here it goes:

    (with out this) int my_method() {...}

 badum -ching!

 --bb


 
 What are you joking about?  Did someone suggest getting rid of static? 


Not recently, but it always comes up top on the list of confusingly 
overused keywords.

I was just thinking about it a little because adding const(this) would 
kind of make static stick out.  I was trying to think of some way static 
on methods could be made more parallel with const(this).  Something like 
no(this) was the first thing that came to mind, but that's not a keyword 
so I went trolling through the keyword index to see if there was 
anything else suitable.  But the best I could come up with sounded more 
like a feeble attempt at humor than a real solution.

--bb
Nov 30 2007
parent reply Matti Niemenmaa <see_signature for.real.address> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:

 Something like no(this) was the first thing that came to mind, but that's not
 a keyword so I went trolling through the keyword index to see if there was 
 anything else suitable.


How about:

(!this)            int my_method() {...}
(!in this)         int my_method() {...}
(with !this)       int my_method() {...}
(!with this)       int my_method() {...}
(is !in this)      int my_method() {...}
(!is in this)      int my_method() {...}
(this !is in this) int my_method() {...}
(this is !in this) int my_method() {...}

Where in the latter two, the first 'this' of course refers to the method.

-- 
E-mail address: matti.niemenmaa+news, domain is iki (DOT) fi
Nov 30 2007
next sibling parent reply Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:
Matti Niemenmaa wrote:

 Bill Baxter wrote:

 Something like no(this) was the first thing that came to mind, but that's not
 a keyword so I went trolling through the keyword index to see if there was 
 anything else suitable.


 
 How about:
 
 (!this)            int my_method() {...}
 (!in this)         int my_method() {...}
 (with !this)       int my_method() {...}
 (!with this)       int my_method() {...}
 (is !in this)      int my_method() {...}
 (!is in this)      int my_method() {...}
 (this !is in this) int my_method() {...}
 (this is !in this) int my_method() {...}
 
 Where in the latter two, the first 'this' of course refers to the method.
 


Now you're on to something!  Just tweak that last one slightly:

   (this is !in function) int my_method() {...}

Perfect!

:-P
Nov 30 2007
parent reply Matti Niemenmaa <see_signature for.real.address> writes:
Bill Baxter wrote:

 Now you're on to something!  Just tweak that last one slightly:
 
   (this is !in function) int my_method() {...}
 
 Perfect!


Nah, this one's perfect:

(this function is !in this class) int my_method() {...}

-- 
E-mail address: matti.niemenmaa+news, domain is iki (DOT) fi
Nov 30 2007
next sibling parent Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
Matti Niemenmaa wrote:

 Bill Baxter wrote:

 Now you're on to something!  Just tweak that last one slightly:

   (this is !in function) int my_method() {...}

 Perfect!


 
 Nah, this one's perfect:
 
 (this function is !in this class) int my_method() {...}
 


If only we had Java's instanceof:

(this function is !in this instanceof this class) int my_method() {...}
Nov 30 2007
prev sibling next sibling parent reply BCS <BCS pathlink.com> writes:
Matti Niemenmaa wrote:

 Bill Baxter wrote:
 

Now you're on to something!  Just tweak that last one slightly:

  (this is !in function) int my_method() {...}

Perfect!


 
 
 Nah, this one's perfect:
 
 (this function is !in this class) int my_method() {...}
 


Free kudos* to the first person to get a haiku of key words to compile. 
Anyone want to go for a limerick?


* kudos will consist of "well done ____" being posted where ____ is 
replaced with the name of the person awarded said kudos.
Nov 30 2007
next sibling parent Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
BCS wrote:

 Matti Niemenmaa wrote:

 Bill Baxter wrote:


 Now you're on to something!  Just tweak that last one slightly:

  (this is !in function) int my_method() {...}

 Perfect!



 Nah, this one's perfect:

 (this function is !in this class) int my_method() {...}


 
 Free kudos* to the first person to get a haiku of key words to compile. 
 Anyone want to go for a limerick?
 
 
 * kudos will consist of "well done ____" being posted where ____ is 
 replaced with the name of the person awarded said kudos.


Problem is, most keywords don't work too close to each other. If you 
allow arbitrary identifiers, too easy.
Nov 30 2007
prev sibling parent reply Matti Niemenmaa <see_signature for.real.address> writes:
BCS wrote:

 Free kudos* to the first person to get a haiku of key words to compile.


protected static
this() { if (new short) assert (is(
typeof(typeid(int)))); }


 Anyone want to go for a limerick?


static assert (is(typeof(new short)));
static this() { if (new short is new short)
	volatile if (true)
	try { debug null; do {}
while (false); } catch { return new ushort;}}

Both compile with 1.024. With 2.0 one could probably use the const stuff to good
effect.

-- 
E-mail address: matti.niemenmaa+news, domain is iki (DOT) fi
Dec 01 2007
next sibling parent BCS <ao pathlink.com> writes:
Reply to Matti,


 BCS wrote:
 

 Free kudos* to the first person to get a haiku of key words to
 compile.
 


 protected static
 this() { if (new short) assert (is(
 typeof(typeid(int)))); }

 Anyone want to go for a limerick?
 


 static assert (is(typeof(new short)));
 static this() { if (new short is new short)
 volatile if (true)
 try { debug null; do {}
 while (false); } catch { return new ushort;}}
 Both compile with 1.024. With 2.0 one could probably use the const
 stuff to good effect.
 


well done Matti!!!

That is cool.
Dec 02 2007
prev sibling parent Sebastian Beschke <s.beschke gmx.de> writes:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Matti Niemenmaa schrieb:

 BCS wrote:

 Free kudos* to the first person to get a haiku of key words to compile.


 
 protected static
 this() { if (new short) assert (is(
 typeof(typeid(int)))); }
 

 Anyone want to go for a limerick?


 
 static assert (is(typeof(new short)));
 static this() { if (new short is new short)
 	volatile if (true)
 	try { debug null; do {}
 while (false); } catch { return new ushort;}}
 
 Both compile with 1.024. With 2.0 one could probably use the const stuff to
good
 effect.
 


OMG.

Well done Matti.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHU1VuKb/1n5A2TAMRAh/TAJ0bo2rJlbIQaaF8gE2hy225PonKYgCfSqpG
VKD0g+HUK/VByPhzfL/n1i8=
=z6N3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dec 02 2007
prev sibling parent Leandro Lucarella <llucax gmail.com> writes:
Matti Niemenmaa, el 30 de noviembre a las 21:11 me escribiste:

 Bill Baxter wrote:

 Now you're on to something!  Just tweak that last one slightly:
 
   (this is !in function) int my_method() {...}
 
 Perfect!


 
 Nah, this one's perfect:
 
 (this function is !in this class) int my_method() {...}


The obvious missing one is:


 (class function with out this) int my_method() {...}


-- 
Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oiganmen ñatos de corazón, es más posible que un potus florezca en
primavera a que un ángel pase con una remera.
	-- Peperino Pómoro
Nov 30 2007
prev sibling parent Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:
Matti Niemenmaa wrote:

 (this is !in this) int my_method() {...}


You get an oatmeal rasin cookie for that! And an easter egg in the 
Descent parser that won't mark that as a syntax error if I'm feeling bored.
Nov 30 2007
prev sibling parent reply Mike <vertex gmx.at> writes:
This reminds me of this:

http://forums.worsethanfailure.com/forums/thread/82701.aspx

Maybe we could try the same with D :)

BCS Wrote:


 Reply to Matti,
 

 BCS wrote:
 

 Free kudos* to the first person to get a haiku of key words to
 compile.
 


 protected static
 this() { if (new short) assert (is(
 typeof(typeid(int)))); }

 Anyone want to go for a limerick?
 


 static assert (is(typeof(new short)));
 static this() { if (new short is new short)
 volatile if (true)
 try { debug null; do {}
 while (false); } catch { return new ushort;}}
 Both compile with 1.024. With 2.0 one could probably use the const
 stuff to good effect.
 


 
 well done Matti!!!
 
 That is cool.
Dec 02 2007
parent reply Matti Niemenmaa <see_signature for.real.address> writes:
Mike wrote:

 This reminds me of this:
 
 http://forums.worsethanfailure.com/forums/thread/82701.aspx
 
 Maybe we could try the same with D :)


class X {
	void f()
	/+ begin +/
	in {} out {} body {}

	align abstract auto const debug deprecated export extern final package private
protected public scope synchronized struct {
		static union {}
	}

	override invariant {
		asm{}
		try volatile with (typeof(super)) switch(typeid(char) is null) { goto default;
case false: }
		catch { throw new class {}; } finally {}

		delete this;
	}

	unittest {
		for (;;) if (cast(bool)true) {
			do continue;
			while (function(){});
		} else break;

		return assert(delegate void(lazy byte, ref cdouble, inout cfloat, creal,
dchar, double, float, idouble, ifloat, ireal, long, real, ubyte, uint, ulong,
ushort, wchar){});
	}
}
alias int /+ end +/ x;

83 keywords of a possible 98 (unless I missed some). The code compiles with
-unittest -debug. There's one warning "switch statement has no default" if
compiled with -w, though, so I guess I only get 82 points according to the rules
there. :-)

The class is needed only to get the anonymous struct, otherwise it could be all
at global scope.

Keywords which can't be used at all:
	cent, ucent, macro

The rest of the keywords need an identifier and thus can't be used without
breaking the chain. Feel free to prove me wrong, of course. :-)

I chose to use "alias" at the end there because it happened to be alphabetically
the first. The other options:
	enum, import, interface, foreach, foreach_reverse, mixin, module
	pragma, template, typedef, version, __traits


-- 
E-mail address: matti.niemenmaa+news, domain is iki (DOT) fi
Dec 03 2007
parent reply Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
Matti Niemenmaa wrote:

 Mike wrote:

 This reminds me of this:

 http://forums.worsethanfailure.com/forums/thread/82701.aspx

 Maybe we could try the same with D :)


 
 class X {
 	void f()
 	/+ begin +/
 	in {} out {} body {}
 
 	align abstract auto const debug deprecated export extern final package private
 protected public scope synchronized struct {
 		static union {}
 	}
 
 	override invariant {
 		asm{}
 		try volatile with (typeof(super)) switch(typeid(char) is null) { goto
default;
 case false: }
 		catch { throw new class {}; } finally {}
 
 		delete this;
 	}
 
 	unittest {
 		for (;;) if (cast(bool)true) {
 			do continue;
 			while (function(){});
 		} else break;
 
 		return assert(delegate void(lazy byte, ref cdouble, inout cfloat, creal,
 dchar, double, float, idouble, ifloat, ireal, long, real, ubyte, uint, ulong,
 ushort, wchar){});
 	}
 }
 alias int /+ end +/ x;
 
 83 keywords of a possible 98 (unless I missed some). The code compiles with
 -unittest -debug. There's one warning "switch statement has no default" if
 compiled with -w, though, so I guess I only get 82 points according to the
rules
 there. :-)
 
 The class is needed only to get the anonymous struct, otherwise it could be all
 at global scope.
 
 Keywords which can't be used at all:
 	cent, ucent, macro
 
 The rest of the keywords need an identifier and thus can't be used without
 breaking the chain. Feel free to prove me wrong, of course. :-)
 
 I chose to use "alias" at the end there because it happened to be
alphabetically
 the first. The other options:
 	enum, import, interface, foreach, foreach_reverse, mixin, module
 	pragma, template, typedef, version, __traits
 
 


You could've done 'alias __traits(something...) identifier' instead, for 
  one extra.
Dec 03 2007
next sibling parent Matti Niemenmaa <see_signature for.real.address> writes:
Christopher Wright wrote:

 You could've done 'alias __traits(something...) identifier' instead, for one
 extra.


TBH I didn't use __traits because I don't have a 2.0 compiler handy. I didn't
know I could do that, cheers. :-)

-- 
E-mail address: matti.niemenmaa+news, domain is iki (DOT) fi
Dec 03 2007
prev sibling parent reply Christopher Wright <dhasenan gmail.com> writes:
Christopher Wright wrote:

 Matti Niemenmaa wrote:

 Mike wrote:

 This reminds me of this:

 http://forums.worsethanfailure.com/forums/thread/82701.aspx

 Maybe we could try the same with D :)


 class X {
     void f()
     /+ begin +/
     in {} out {} body {}

     align abstract auto const debug deprecated export extern final 
 package private
 protected public scope synchronized struct {
         static union {}
     }

     override invariant {
         asm{}
         try volatile with (typeof(super)) switch(typeid(char) is null) 
 { goto default;
 case false: }
         catch { throw new class {}; } finally {}

         delete this;
     }

     unittest {
         for (;;) if (cast(bool)true) {
             do continue;
             while (function(){});
         } else break;

         return assert(delegate void(lazy byte, ref cdouble, inout 
 cfloat, creal,
 dchar, double, float, idouble, ifloat, ireal, long, real, ubyte, uint, 
 ulong,
 ushort, wchar){});
     }
 }
 alias int /+ end +/ x;

 83 keywords of a possible 98 (unless I missed some). The code compiles 
 with
 -unittest -debug. There's one warning "switch statement has no 
 default" if
 compiled with -w, though, so I guess I only get 82 points according to 
 the rules
 there. :-)

 The class is needed only to get the anonymous struct, otherwise it 
 could be all
 at global scope.

 Keywords which can't be used at all:
     cent, ucent, macro

 The rest of the keywords need an identifier and thus can't be used 
 without
 breaking the chain. Feel free to prove me wrong, of course. :-)

 I chose to use "alias" at the end there because it happened to be 
 alphabetically
 the first. The other options:
     enum, import, interface, foreach, foreach_reverse, mixin, module
     pragma, template, typedef, version, __traits


 
 You could've done 'alias __traits(something...) identifier' instead, for 
  one extra.


My mistake; that wouldn't actually increase it, if you're only counting 
globally reserved keywords.

If you could have an anonymous template, you could do:
mixin (template () { module foo; })!();
Dec 03 2007
parent Matti Niemenmaa <see_signature for.real.address> writes:
Christopher Wright wrote:

 Christopher Wright wrote:

 Matti Niemenmaa wrote:




<snip>


         return assert(delegate void(lazy byte, ref cdouble, inout
 cfloat, creal,
 dchar, double, float, idouble, ifloat, ireal, long, real, ubyte,
 uint, ulong,
 ushort, wchar){});
     }
 }
 alias int /+ end +/ x;






<snip>


 You could've done 'alias __traits(something...) identifier' instead,
 for  one extra.


 
 My mistake; that wouldn't actually increase it, if you're only counting
 globally reserved keywords.


Sure it would. "int" can be moved into that delegate and then we'd have __traits
in addition to everything I originally used.


 If you could have an anonymous template, you could do:
 mixin (template () { module foo; })!();


Yeah, anonymous templates would chop off a few keywords off the "left-over"
list. I'm not sure if putting module in a template like that would work, though,
but there are plenty of other options if it doesn't.

-- 
E-mail address: matti.niemenmaa+news, domain is iki (DOT) fi
Dec 03 2007