[#BOO-903] Allow 'of' to be omitted in type references when [] are used

Boo

Allow 'of' to be omitted in type references when [] are used

Created: 26/Oct/07 07:20 AM Updated: 28/May/08 01:11 PM

Component/s:

None

Affects Version/s:

0.8

Fix Version/s:

0.8.3

Time Tracking:

Not Specified

Testcase included:

yes

Description

« Hide

I want to be able to write:

class Maybe[T]:
pass

class Some[T](Maybe[T]):
public value as T

class None[T](Maybe[T]):
pass

Instead of:

class Maybe[of T]:
pass

class Some[of T](Maybe[of T]):
public value as T

class None[of T](Maybe[of T]):
pass

All those 'of' are not necessary there for there's no ambiguity.

All

Comments

Work Log

Change History

Sort Order:

Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order

[ Permlink | « Hide ]

Avishay Lavie - 26/Oct/07 07:52 AM

IMHO, this gets us farther from Booishness and closer to C#-ity. I don't have an alternative though, but the "of" makes things so much more readable and more natural.

Also:

enum Age:
  Toddler,
  Child,
  Adolescent,
  Mature,
  Elderly

class Example:
  [property(List)]
  _list as (string)

  [property(Age)]
  _age as int

  def Method():
    something = List[Age]
    # do I mean self.List[self.Age], or typeof(List[of Age])?

certainly such morbid examples are far too common to allow this to take place

[ Permlink | « Hide ]

Cedric Vivier - 05/Feb/08 09:26 AM

I agree with Avish. It doesn't help readability and having several ways to write generic type references makes things confusing imho.

[ Permlink | « Hide ]

Greg Nagel - 11/Mar/08 05:59 PM

"[of X, Y Z]" still looks odd, though. Why not make it "of [X, Y, Z]"?

[ Permlink | « Hide ]

Greg Nagel - 28/May/08 01:11 PM

Er, ignore my last comment, but should this issue be closed?