> Are you serious? You are offended by the idea of reading documentation?This is not helping the credibility of your argument. Again, I'm not a D user, but this is just silly.

If you knew me, and you read my comment history, you would have NEVER said that. It is not even a matter of reading the documentation or not. "idup" seems arbitrary, sorry, I meant the whole line sounds arbitrary. Why "a"? Why "a.idup"? Why "map!"? I was asking genuine questions. You do not have to bash me and see ghosts. I was curious as to why it was implemented the way it was.

I am an active speaker against people who hate reading the documentation.

And FYI, I love Perl[1] and OCaml[2].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44359539

[2] You would have to check the comment history.

▲

schveiguy a day ago | parent | next [-]

> Why "a"

`a` is a parameter in the lambda function `a => a.idup`.

> Why "map!"

This is definitely something that can trip up new users or casual users. D does not use <> for template/generic instantiation, we use !. So `map!(a => a.idup)` means, instantiate the map template with this lambda.

What map is doing is transforming each element of a range into something else using a transformation function (this should be familiar I think?)

FWIW, I've been using D for nearly 20 years, and the template instantiation syntax is one of those things that is so much better, but you have to experience it to understand.

> "idup" seems arbitrary

Yes, but a lot of things are arbitrary in any language.

This name is a product of legacy. The original D incarnation (called D1) did not have immutable data as a language feature. To duplicate an array, you used the property `dup`, which I think is pretty well understood.

So when D2 came along, and you might want to duplicate an array into an immutable array, we got `idup`.

Yes, you have to read some documentation, not everything can be immediately obvious. There are a lot of obvious parts of D, and I think the learning curve is low.

	▲	johnisgood 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks for the reply. > Yes, but a lot of things are arbitrary in any language. I disagree, but to each their own. > Yes, you have to read some documentation, not everything can be immediately obvious. I do not disagree, but I wanted to know the rationale behind it ("map!(a => a.idup)")!

▲

quietbritishjim a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think perhaps you are not realising the negative tone of your comments. There is no way to read "How is one supposed to know this? Reading the documentation?" except sarcasm. No amount of good faith in unrelated comment threads changes this. I believe that's why you're getting downvoted - not because people are easily offended about D, as you seem to believe.

▲

johnisgood a day ago | parent [-]

Well, I did not intend my statement to be sarcastic. It was a genuine question. Blame my lack of social skills, or the fact that I am on the spectrum. I was curious about the implementation details, i.e. why "!" (in map), why "a", why "idup", etc. That is not to say I am reluctant to read the documentation, I am more than willing, but I wanted to know the story behind it. I have ideas, but they might be wrong. I do not want to guess when I can have a direct answer from Walter.

	▲	WalterBright 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		a!arg is used because I hated the look of a<arg> used in C++. (Using < > to bracket things when < means less than and > means greater than is always trying to short-circuit my brain.)

▲

cxr a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I am an active speaker against people who hate reading the documentation.

How is one supposed to know this?

▲

johnisgood a day ago | parent [-]

I dunno, check my comment history if you are so curious. Been down-voted for daring to say that people should be less reluctant to read documentation.

▲

cxr a day ago | parent [-]

I refer you to the context of this discussion—how it is we got to be here:

> How is one supposed to know this? Reading[…]?

▲

johnisgood 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Are you asking me to find the comment where I stated that I "dislike" people who are reluctant to read documentation?

	▲	cxr 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No.

▲

a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]