• Chris (10/10) Jan 28 2014 Is there a simple way to trick the compiler (e.g. with alias), if
• Stanislav Blinov (2/2) Jan 28 2014 On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 11:22:10 UTC, Chris wrote:
• Chris (3/5) Jan 28 2014 Cripes! There goes my API ...
• Stanislav Blinov (2/8) Jan 28 2014 Aww, a bit of underscoring hasn't hurt anyone yet. :)
• Namespace (3/13) Jan 28 2014 Write in with an uppercase. ;)
• simendsjo (2/18) Jan 28 2014 I've also seen some people append _: body_, int_ etc.
• Dicebot (2/3) Jan 28 2014 It is what current Phobos style guide suggests.
• Chris (3/6) Jan 28 2014 Yes, I've used it, but don't like it. Maybe I'll opt for the
• Andrej Mitrovic (4/8) Jan 28 2014 "body" is probably the most frequent issue I run into when porting
• Stanislav Blinov (3/7) Jan 28 2014 o_O How?
• "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= (4/6) Jan 28 2014 If "body" never appears after a ".", and is only before a "{"
• Ary Borenszweig (11/17) Jan 28 2014 Exactly: body is only a conflict when appearing alone. But after a "."
• bearophile (5/12) Jan 28 2014 Ruby is a different language from D, they define "code safety" in
• "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= (7/9) Jan 28 2014 In D I think "body" actually is redundant since in/out always
• Ary Borenszweig (2/16) Jan 28 2014 Having a method named "end" doesn't make the language less safe.
• Chris (3/23) Jan 28 2014 End is cumbersome and looks awkward. Sure there are other ways ;)
• Ary Borenszweig (3/25) Jan 29 2014 Yes, as there are other ways for body: _body, _body, Body, HtmlBody,
• Stanislav Blinov (3/5) Jan 29 2014 torso? ;)
• Chris (4/9) Jan 30 2014 offspring = document.createElement("div");
• Stanislav Blinov (2/4) Jan 30 2014 Looks great! :D
• Martin Cejp (3/11) Jan 28 2014 Not being a keyword except in places where it is used as such.
• Stanislav Blinov (7/12) Jan 28 2014 Only if it's not a keyword at all, lest you complicate parsing.
• "Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?= <schuetzm gmx.net> (9/22) Feb 01 2014 It's surprisingly easy to implement, see here:
• "Casper =?UTF-8?B?RsOmcmdlbWFuZCI=?= <shorttail gmail.com> (4/8) Jan 28 2014 All my input and output streams in Java are called in and out. x.x
• Chris (7/17) Jan 28 2014 Some kind of aliasing mechanism would be nice to escape keyword
• Piotrek (4/15) Jan 28 2014 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5775
• Adam D. Ruppe (9/12) Jan 28 2014 alas, no. In my dom.d, I called that method "mainBody" instead...

"Chris" <wendlec tcd.ie> writes:

Is there a simple way to trick the compiler (e.g. with alias), if 
a keyword conflicts with a function/method, e.g. as in a HTML 
document:

auto docBody = document.body;

// corresponding method (will not compile due to body being a 
keyword)

 property auto body() {
   // simplified code
   return this.getElementByTagName("body");
}

"Stanislav Blinov" <stanislav.blinov gmail.com> writes:

On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 11:22:10 UTC, Chris wrote:

Nope, just choose a different name.

"Chris" <wendlec tcd.ie> writes:

On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 11:24:33 UTC, Stanislav Blinov 
wrote:
 On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 11:22:10 UTC, Chris wrote:

 Nope, just choose a different name.

Cripes! There goes my API ...

"Stanislav Blinov" <stanislav.blinov gmail.com> writes:

On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 11:38:16 UTC, Chris wrote:
 On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 11:24:33 UTC, Stanislav Blinov 
 wrote:
 On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 11:22:10 UTC, Chris wrote:

 Nope, just choose a different name.

 Cripes! There goes my API ...

Aww, a bit of underscoring hasn't hurt anyone yet. :)

"Namespace" <rswhite4 googlemail.com> writes:

On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 11:22:10 UTC, Chris wrote:
 Is there a simple way to trick the compiler (e.g. with alias), 
 if a keyword conflicts with a function/method, e.g. as in a 
 HTML document:

 auto docBody = document.body;

 // corresponding method (will not compile due to body being a 
 keyword)

  property auto body() {
   // simplified code
   return this.getElementByTagName("body");
 }

Write in with an uppercase. ;)
Int, If, Template...

"simendsjo" <simendsjo gmail.com> writes:

On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 12:25:19 UTC, Namespace wrote:
 On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 11:22:10 UTC, Chris wrote:
 Is there a simple way to trick the compiler (e.g. with alias), 
 if a keyword conflicts with a function/method, e.g. as in a 
 HTML document:

 auto docBody = document.body;

 // corresponding method (will not compile due to body being a 
 keyword)

  property auto body() {
  // simplified code
  return this.getElementByTagName("body");
 }

 Write in with an uppercase. ;)
 Int, If, Template...

I've also seen some people append _: body_, int_ etc.

"Dicebot" <public dicebot.lv> writes:

On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 12:43:59 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
 I've also seen some people append _: body_, int_ etc.

It is what current Phobos style guide suggests.

"Chris" <wendlec tcd.ie> writes:

On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 12:45:37 UTC, Dicebot wrote:
 On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 12:43:59 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
 I've also seen some people append _: body_, int_ etc.

 It is what current Phobos style guide suggests.

Yes, I've used it, but don't like it. Maybe I'll opt for the 
uppercase solution.

Andrej Mitrovic <andrej.mitrovich gmail.com> writes:

On 1/28/14, Chris <wendlec tcd.ie> wrote:
 Is there a simple way to trick the compiler (e.g. with alias), if
 a keyword conflicts with a function/method, e.g. as in a HTML
 document:

 auto docBody = document.body;

"body" is probably the most frequent issue I run into when porting
C/C++ code to D.

I really wonder whether the rule could be relaxed a little bit.

"Stanislav Blinov" <stanislav.blinov gmail.com> writes:

On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 12:57:02 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic 
wrote:

 "body" is probably the most frequent issue I run into when 
 porting
 C/C++ code to D.

 I really wonder whether the rule could be relaxed a little bit.

o_O How?

"Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:

On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 12:58:29 UTC, Stanislav Blinov 
wrote:

 I really wonder whether the rule could be relaxed a little bit.

 o_O How?

If "body" never appears after a ".", and is only before a "{"  
then there is no conflict?

Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:

On 1/28/14, 10:00 AM, "Ola Fosheim Grøstad" 
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dlang gmail.com>" wrote:
 On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 12:58:29 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote:

 I really wonder whether the rule could be relaxed a little bit.

 o_O How?

 If "body" never appears after a ".", and is only before a "{" then there
 is no conflict?

Exactly: body is only a conflict when appearing alone. But after a "." 
it's perfectly fine.

In Ruby you can do this:

class Foo
   def end
     1
   end
end

Foo.new.end

"bearophile" <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

Ary Borenszweig:

 In Ruby you can do this:

 class Foo
   def end
     1
   end
 end

 Foo.new.end

Ruby is a different language from D, they define "code safety" in 
quite different ways.

Bye,
bearophile

"Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?= writes:

On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 14:30:36 UTC, bearophile wrote:
 Ruby is a different language from D, they define "code safety" 
 in quite different ways.

In D I think "body" actually is redundant since in/out always 
should be followed by a function body?

Maybe it has more to do with parsing strategies. If you use a 
separate and fully independent lexer then the symbol "body" might 
be lost and replaced by a keyword enumeration so by tradition you 
reserve all keywords?

Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:

On 1/28/14, 11:30 AM, bearophile wrote:
 Ary Borenszweig:

 In Ruby you can do this:

 class Foo
   def end
     1
   end
 end

 Foo.new.end

 Ruby is a different language from D, they define "code safety" in quite
 different ways.

 Bye,
 bearophile

Having a method named "end" doesn't make the language less safe.

"Chris" <wendlec tcd.ie> writes:

On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 17:18:44 UTC, Ary Borenszweig 
wrote:
 On 1/28/14, 11:30 AM, bearophile wrote:
 Ary Borenszweig:

 In Ruby you can do this:

 class Foo
  def end
    1
  end
 end

 Foo.new.end

 Ruby is a different language from D, they define "code safety" 
 in quite
 different ways.

 Bye,
 bearophile

 Having a method named "end" doesn't make the language less safe.

End is cumbersome and looks awkward. Sure there are other ways ;)

Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:

On 1/28/14, 3:17 PM, Chris wrote:
 On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 17:18:44 UTC, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
 On 1/28/14, 11:30 AM, bearophile wrote:
 Ary Borenszweig:

 In Ruby you can do this:

 class Foo
  def end
    1
  end
 end

 Foo.new.end

 Ruby is a different language from D, they define "code safety" in quite
 different ways.

 Bye,
 bearophile

 Having a method named "end" doesn't make the language less safe.

 End is cumbersome and looks awkward. Sure there are other ways ;)

Yes, as there are other ways for body: _body, _body, Body, HtmlBody, 
etc. But "body" is the best one.

"Stanislav Blinov" <stanislav.blinov gmail.com> writes:

On Wednesday, 29 January 2014 at 17:11:32 UTC, Ary Borenszweig 
wrote:

 Yes, as there are other ways for body: _body, _body, Body, 
 HtmlBody, etc. But "body" is the best one.

torso? ;)

"Chris" <wendlec tcd.ie> writes:

On Wednesday, 29 January 2014 at 17:12:57 UTC, Stanislav Blinov 
wrote:
 On Wednesday, 29 January 2014 at 17:11:32 UTC, Ary Borenszweig 
 wrote:

 Yes, as there are other ways for body: _body, _body, Body, 
 HtmlBody, etc. But "body" is the best one.

 torso? ;)

offspring = document.createElement("div");

document.torso.addOffspring(div);

"Stanislav Blinov" <stanislav.blinov gmail.com> writes:

On Thursday, 30 January 2014 at 10:15:10 UTC, Chris wrote:

 offspring = document.createElement("div");

 document.torso.addOffspring(div);

Looks great! :D

"Martin Cejp" <minexew gmail.com> writes:

On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 12:58:29 UTC, Stanislav Blinov 
wrote:
 On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 12:57:02 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic 
 wrote:

 "body" is probably the most frequent issue I run into when 
 porting
 C/C++ code to D.

 I really wonder whether the rule could be relaxed a little bit.

 o_O How?

Not being a keyword except in places where it is used as such.

"Stanislav Blinov" <stanislav.blinov gmail.com> writes:

On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 22:35:31 UTC, Martin Cejp wrote:

 I really wonder whether the rule could be relaxed a little 
 bit.

 o_O How?

 Not being a keyword except in places where it is used as such.

Only if it's not a keyword at all, lest you complicate parsing. 
You wouldn't want any other keyword (I dunno, int?) get a special 
treatment now, would you?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for allowing to use "body" as an 
identifier in user code, I just don't see any half-measures in 
that regard :)

"Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?= <schuetzm gmx.net> writes:

On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 22:50:27 UTC, Stanislav Blinov 
wrote:
 On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 22:35:31 UTC, Martin Cejp wrote:

 I really wonder whether the rule could be relaxed a little 
 bit.

 o_O How?

 Not being a keyword except in places where it is used as such.

 Only if it's not a keyword at all, lest you complicate parsing. 
 You wouldn't want any other keyword (I dunno, int?) get a 
 special treatment now, would you?

 Don't get me wrong, I'm all for allowing to use "body" as an 
 identifier in user code, I just don't see any half-measures in 
 that regard :)

It's surprisingly easy to implement, see here:
https://github.com/schuetzm/dmd/commit/955be4ef9f26e92f7a0d5dedf86b64a03d903be8

It requires only a few trivial changes to the compiler, but I have
to admit that it makes the code uglier. In particular, it doesn't
scale; every keyword treated in this way requires additional
special handling.

I'm not sure whether I should make a PR from this...

"Casper =?UTF-8?B?RsOmcmdlbWFuZCI=?= <shorttail gmail.com> writes:

On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 12:57:02 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic 
wrote:
 "body" is probably the most frequent issue I run into when 
 porting
 C/C++ code to D.

 I really wonder whether the rule could be relaxed a little bit.

All my input and output streams in Java are called in and out. x.x
Reminds me of max and min in competitive programming in C++.

"Chris" <wendlec tcd.ie> writes:

On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 16:14:48 UTC, Casper Færgemand 
wrote:
 On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 12:57:02 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic 
 wrote:
 "body" is probably the most frequent issue I run into when 
 porting
 C/C++ code to D.

 I really wonder whether the rule could be relaxed a little bit.

 All my input and output streams in Java are called in and out. 
 x.x
 Reminds me of max and min in competitive programming in C++.

Some kind of aliasing mechanism would be nice to escape keyword 
restrictions. It's a bit awkward to have

document.body_ or document.Body or whatnot.

But I guess it's not trivial to implement that without breaking 
code safety and parsing mechanisms.

"Piotrek" <a b.c> writes:

On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 12:57:02 UTC, Andrej Mitrovic 
wrote:
 On 1/28/14, Chris <wendlec tcd.ie> wrote:
 Is there a simple way to trick the compiler (e.g. with alias), 
 if
 a keyword conflicts with a function/method, e.g. as in a HTML
 document:

 auto docBody = document.body;

 "body" is probably the most frequent issue I run into when 
 porting
 C/C++ code to D.

 I really wonder whether the rule could be relaxed a little bit.

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5775

Actually I'm still wainting for body release ;)

"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> writes:

On Tuesday, 28 January 2014 at 11:22:10 UTC, Chris wrote:
 Is there a simple way to trick the compiler (e.g. with alias), 
 if a keyword conflicts with a function/method, e.g. as in a 
 HTML document:

alas, no. In my dom.d, I called that method "mainBody" instead...

If you are accessing a C function called body, you can access it 
using pragma mangle:

pragma(mangle, "body")
void cBody() { }


Still can't call it "body" in D, so have to add something, but 
the pragma mangle will make the name match up for the linker so 
it refers to the same C function.