Daniel O'Connell [C# MVP] <onyxkirx@--NOSPAM--comcast.net> wrote:
Personally I hope that the syntax changes to make it clearer what's
going on. Something like:
x..Foo("wibble");
I wonder if x:Foo("wibble") or x::Foo("wilbble") could be used here without
any syntactic or semantic trouble
x::Foo("wibble") would suggest a namespace of "x" to me (given the
global::Stuff of 2.0). Other than that it would probably be okay.
x:Foo("wibble") could have difficulties with the ternary operator. How
would you parse:
string y = z==null ? x:Foo("wibble"):"wibble";
(Whitespace could be anywhere in that.)
It's certainly worth trying to think up some more options though. Nick
suggested -> to me at the summit, but that's already used for pointers
in C#.
I suspect that this part of the language spec will stick as it was
(using just ".") but that the way of importing it will change.
I must get round to blogging about the "Evil" class some time...
--
Jon Skeet - <sk***@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog:
http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too