Hacker News Reader

The only thing I would like to see changing is C-style type casting: `(int)myage`

...for some reason, I can't stand this syntax! I find it visually intrusive lol! But if we could allow something like `int(myage)`, it makes it clearer, to me at least.

View on HN

It works visually poorly with things like `int*(ptr)` and `int[2]*(arr)` though.

Yeah, I just came here to write "on the other hand though...what about types, such as `(int*)myage`?" and got irritated with myself lol!

I guess I can define my own way of casting with a macro, `castAs(int *, myage);` and that should work just fine.

Or `cast{int*}(myage)`

Ew...that looks so ugly! LOL!

How about `cast<int*>(myage)`?

<> is the worst choice for generic syntax in a language with C-like syntax. It's not surprising that it was introduced by C++. It is very ambiguous.

Some short examples: `foo<1> * a` – is this `(foo < 1) > (a)` or `(foo<1>) a`? What about `foo<1>>2>a`? Is that `(foo<1> > 2) > a` or `foo<(1>>2)> a`?

Just horrid.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com