• Basile B. (17/17) Dec 30 2024 If you look long enough at some code you'll see patterns like
• zjh (2/5) Dec 30 2024 This `.` is prone to be ambiguity.
• Basile B. (4/10) Dec 30 2024 `.=` would be a whole token. I already use this in styx since
• claptrap (2/19) Jan 01 Too much syntax sugar will lead to cavities.

Basile B. <b2.temp gmx.com> writes:

If you look long enough at some code you'll see patterns like

```d
a = a.b;
```

this pattern strangely looks like binary assignment operators

```d
a = a + b;
```

which can be rewritten as

```d
a += b;
```

In the same fashion we could have

```d
a .= b;
```

The point is to evaluate te left hand side only once.

zjh <fqbqrr 163.com> writes:

On Monday, 30 December 2024 at 21:33:58 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
 ```d
 a .= b;
 ```


This `.` is prone to be ambiguity.

Basile B. <b2.temp gmx.com> writes:

On Tuesday, 31 December 2024 at 01:18:34 UTC, zjh wrote:
 On Monday, 30 December 2024 at 21:33:58 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
 ```d
 a .= b;
 ```


 This `.` is prone to be ambiguity.

`.=` would be a whole token. I already use this in styx since 
several monthes:

![img](https://i.imgur.com/AAKd8Vo.png)

claptrap <clap trap.com> writes:

On Monday, 30 December 2024 at 21:33:58 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
 If you look long enough at some code you'll see patterns like

 ```d
 a = a.b;
 ```

 this pattern strangely looks like binary assignment operators

 ```d
 a = a + b;
 ```

 which can be rewritten as

 ```d
 a += b;
 ```

 In the same fashion we could have

 ```d
 a .= b;
 ```

 The point is to evaluate te left hand side only once.

Too much syntax sugar will lead to cavities.