Ero Mrinin
Ero Mrinin
> Set up a poll on the discord for it perhaps? Good idea.
To add more suport for struct-types, these kind of methods could be added: ``` macro void Pair.@decompose(&self, Type1 #var1, Type2 #var2) { #var1 = self.first; #var2 = self.second; } macro...
Oh, there is a couple of tests based of tuple...
After some time I conclude that ?-prefix is best. To add more readability, I also propose `\\` as a replacement of `??`. I guess it looks nice: `int? index =...
> > // or a better 'or_else' > > int? a = foo() ||| ?io::EOF; > > `|||` is compile time `||` where the right hand side is not evaluated...
`or_else` quite fits with existing `foreach_r`, but I'm not sure if anything with `else` is intuitive for optional semantics... but for regular person it would probably more obvious then `\\`....
> > No more opinions? > > Remove optional from the language completely and implement it in std like C++17 `std::optional`. If speaking seriosly: 1) C3 already has traditional optionals...
With `??` standing, I found `?(io::EOF)` fine because: - `?` pointing to optional semantics - due braces, pops out with `??` and shows order with `!` and `!!` - actually...
I can live with `(?)`, it has a benefits. The most important is to end up with something containing the `?`.
> in c#, > > int? y = 3; > int useY = y ?? 0; How this exactly this corresponds to the topic? (C3 already has `??`, we are...