Timeline for Does any other language use the uniform initialization syntax found in c++?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 20, 2022 at 11:19 | history | edited | Glorfindel | CC BY-SA 4.0 | 2 broken links fixed, cf. https://meta.stackoverflow.com/a/406565/4751173 |
| Jul 3, 2021 at 6:04 | history | edited | Glorfindel | CC BY-SA 4.0 | 2 broken links fixed |
| Nov 11, 2014 at 11:42 | history | edited | outis | CC BY-SA 3.0 | noted connection between Scala's implicit things |
| Nov 4, 2014 at 12:31 | history | edited | outis | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added Haskell example, link & note about Erlang record-to-tuple conversion |
| Nov 4, 2014 at 12:06 | history | edited | outis | CC BY-SA 3.0 | expanded note about implicit conversions in Scala as type extensions |
| Nov 4, 2014 at 10:15 | history | edited | outis | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added note about conversions & open classes |
| Nov 4, 2014 at 9:58 | history | edited | outis | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added note in 1st section about single-value conversion workaround |
| Nov 4, 2014 at 9:44 | history | edited | outis | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added Erlang & Scala conversion examples |
| Nov 4, 2014 at 8:53 | comment | added | Siyuan Ren | The problem with UIS is that it introduces new ambiguity: std::vector<std::string>(1) and std::vector<std::string>{1} means the same, while std::vector<int>(1) and std::vector<int>{1} are different. For this reason, it is more confusing than helpful, and I think it is of negative value introducing it to c++11. | |
| Nov 4, 2014 at 7:21 | history | edited | outis | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added JS, Perl 5 and Perl 6 examples |
| Nov 4, 2014 at 6:56 | history | edited | outis | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added Go example |
| Nov 4, 2014 at 4:43 | vote | accept | Brian Deragon | ||
| Nov 4, 2014 at 1:11 | history | edited | outis | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 2990 characters in body |
| Nov 3, 2014 at 23:04 | comment | added | outis | @RobertHarvey: My point isn't that Scala has unique features but that there's something syntactically similar in Scala, but it isn't an initializer (something similar could be said for C#'s anonymous classes; is that what your comment means?). In your two examples, aren't the anonymous classes syntactically and semantically different from the initializers? Syntactically, the anonymous class takes the place of the constructor call; semantically, initializers don't involve the creation of an anonymous class. In Scala, the anonymous class is in addition to the constructor call. | |
| Nov 3, 2014 at 22:21 | comment | added | Robert Harvey | C# can also make use of anonymous classes. See the second and fourth examples in my answer. | |
| Nov 3, 2014 at 22:20 | history | answered | outis | CC BY-SA 3.0 |