• Marcio Faustino (6/6) Jan 20 2007 The following code:
• Johan Granberg (3/11) Jan 20 2007 This is a programmer error. you are calling the function f within the
• Bill Baxter (7/14) Jan 20 2007 Are you saying you'd like D to implement the tail recursion elimination
• Marcio Faustino (3/4) Jan 20 2007 function or delegate, right?
• Bill Baxter (5/10) Jan 20 2007 No need to apologize. I was surprised by that one too, initially, even
• Andrey Khropov (6/8) Jan 21 2007 I think it's a harmful and error-prone feature. And it's also inconsiste...
• Lionello Lunesu (9/18) Jan 21 2007 (implicit) properties.
• Bill Baxter (15/28) Jan 21 2007 I know what you mean. But it's very handy in the context of methods

Marcio Faustino <m.faustino.remove-this gmail.com> writes:

The following code:
void f() { f; }
void main() {
    f();
}

compiled by DMD v1.0 (on Windows XP) generates an "Error: Stack Overflow" error.

Johan Granberg <lijat.meREM OVE.gmail.com> writes:

Marcio Faustino wrote:

 The following code:
 void f() { f; }
 void main() {
     f();
 }
 
 compiled by DMD v1.0 (on Windows XP) generates an "Error: Stack Overflow"
 error.

This is a programmer error. you are calling the function f within the
function f causing an infinite recursion.

Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:

Marcio Faustino wrote:
 The following code:
 void f() { f; }
 void main() {
     f();
 }
 
 compiled by DMD v1.0 (on Windows XP) generates an "Error: Stack Overflow"
error.

Are you saying you'd like D to implement the tail recursion elimination 
optimization?  Because most C/C++ compilers would probably generate a 
stack overflow on the equivalent of that code too.

Oh, you do realize D treats  'blah' as a synonym for 'blah()' if blah is 
a function or delegate, right?

--bb

Marcio Faustino <m.faustino.remove-this gmail.com> writes:

Bill Baxter wrote:
 Oh, you do realize D treats  'blah' as a synonym for 'blah()' if blah > is a

function or delegate, right?

Didn't know that, how dumb of me. Sorry.

Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:

Marcio Faustino wrote:
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 Oh, you do realize D treats  'blah' as a synonym for 'blah()' if blah > is a

 function or delegate, right?
 
 Didn't know that, how dumb of me. Sorry.

No need to apologize.  I was surprised by that one too, initially, even 
though I knew methods could be called without the ().  I just didn't 
expect that would extend to top-level functions too.

--bb

"Andrey Khropov" <andkhropov_nosp m_mtu-net.ru> writes:

Bill Baxter wrote:


 Oh, you do realize D treats  'blah' as a synonym for 'blah()' if blah is a
 function or delegate, right?

I think it's a harmful and error-prone feature. And it's also inconsistent:

auto f2 = f; // here f is treated like a variable
f; // here f means call itself, but it looks exactly the same

Why on earth is this needed ?

-- 

"Lionello Lunesu" <lionello lunesu.remove.com> writes:

"Andrey Khropov" <andkhropov_nosp m_mtu-net.ru> wrote in message 
news:ep01si$o08$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Bill Baxter wrote:


 Oh, you do realize D treats  'blah' as a synonym for 'blah()' if blah is 
 a
 function or delegate, right?

 I think it's a harmful and error-prone feature. And it's also 
 inconsistent:

 auto f2 = f; // here f is treated like a variable
 f; // here f means call itself, but it looks exactly the same

 Why on earth is this needed ?

(implicit) properties.

#auto f2 = f;    // f can be a variable or a property getter

(Uhm, that would work, if there weren't that issue with using auto + a 
getter that way.)

I like this feature. It gets rid of many () pairs, and I think it's a 
straightforward way for properties.

L.

Bill Baxter <dnewsgroup billbaxter.com> writes:

Andrey Khropov wrote:
 Bill Baxter wrote:
 
 
 Oh, you do realize D treats  'blah' as a synonym for 'blah()' if blah is a
 function or delegate, right?

 
 I think it's a harmful and error-prone feature. And it's also inconsistent:
 
 auto f2 = f; // here f is treated like a variable
 f; // here f means call itself, but it looks exactly the same
 
 Why on earth is this needed ?
 

I know what you mean.  But it's very handy in the context of methods 
that masquerade as properties.  So you can say obj.prop instead of 
obj.prop().  I think I would prefer, though, if that feature had to be 
explicitly enabled for a particular method.  Something like:

     property float prop() { return m_prop; }

Then for most functions (which aren't properties) we could dispense with 
the & required to take the address.

On the other hand there is something to be said for consistency and 
regularity.  foo is synonymous with foo() if foo is a function.  Period. 
   So I can sorta see why Walter made it the way it is.  That and 
probably it was a lot easier to implement the way it is, since the 
compiler doesn't have to keep track of whether a function is a 
'property' function or not.

--bb