Re: [crystal] Re: Utilizing Bound But Undefined as a kind of type/class

[Ary Borenszweig]

We are reading, but I usually dislike too much magic or implicit stuff.

I think:

x = ""

x = 0

x = 0_u8

is better and shorter than

x = x : String

x = x : Int32

x = x : UInt8

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:35 PM TR NS <tran...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not sure anyone is reading this, but just the same...

I have an better way to handle it that doesn't require that `x : String` return anything (looking at Crystal source is seems like it would be either a TypeDeclaration or an UndefinedVar, btw, but I'm not sure), nor do we need the slight adjustment to the behavior of `=` if the right hand side is such a thing.

Instead we simply make an exception to the usual `{method}=`  expansion rule (e.g. `+=`). We make this exception because `:` is an built-in operator and not a method. So,
 
     x := String

is simply syntax sugar for

     x : String = String.new

Can't get any simpler than that.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Crystal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to crystal-lang...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to crysta...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/crystal-lang.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/crystal-lang/5b5990ca-c74b-477a-9db5-1ede8d1fa3a0%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.