• Peter Alexander (8/8) Jan 25 2013 Would this be possible without breaking the grammar?
• Timon Gehr (5/13) Jan 25 2013 bool isPalindrome = getRange().ap!(r => equal(r, retro(r)));

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

Would this be possible without breaking the grammar?

bool isPalindrome = getRange().(r => equal(r, retro(r)));


I find this way of writing that expression more natural and 
efficient than the alternatives:

auto r = getRange();
bool isPalindrome = equal(r, retro(r));

or

bool isPalindrome = (r => equal(r, retro(r)))(getRange());

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

On 01/25/2013 10:37 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:
 Would this be possible without breaking the grammar?

 bool isPalindrome = getRange().(r => equal(r, retro(r)));

Yes.

 I find this way of writing that expression more natural and efficient
 than the alternatives:

 auto r = getRange();
 bool isPalindrome = equal(r, retro(r));

 or

 bool isPalindrome = (r => equal(r, retro(r)))(getRange());

bool isPalindrome = getRange().ap!(r => equal(r, retro(r)));

where

auto ap(alias a,T...)(T b)=>a(b);