jyapayne/Nim
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

updated the documentation for the 'do' notation

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Andreas Rumpf 2016-01-16 13:43:22 +01:00
commit 2910096cce
2 changed files with 4 additions and 5 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

8
doc/manual/procs.txt
View file

@ -236,8 +236,6 @@ executable code.
Do notation Do notation
----------- -----------
**Note:** The future of the ``do`` notation is uncertain.
As a special more convenient notation, proc expressions involved in procedure As a special more convenient notation, proc expressions involved in procedure
calls can use the ``do`` keyword: calls can use the ``do`` keyword:
@ -251,10 +249,12 @@ calls can use the ``do`` keyword:
``do`` is written after the parentheses enclosing the regular proc params. ``do`` is written after the parentheses enclosing the regular proc params.
The proc expression represented by the do block is appended to them. The proc expression represented by the do block is appended to them.
More than one ``do`` block can appear in a single call: ``do`` with parentheses is an anonymous ``proc``; however a ``do`` without
parentheses is just a block of code. The ``do`` notation can be used to
pass multiple blocks to a macro:
.. code-block:: nim .. code-block:: nim
proc performWithUndo(task: proc(), undo: proc()) = ... macro performWithUndo(task, undo: untyped) = ...
performWithUndo do: performWithUndo do:
# multiple-line block of code # multiple-line block of code

1
todo.txt
View file

@ -4,7 +4,6 @@ essential for 1.0
- introduce newSeqOfCap(10) - introduce newSeqOfCap(10)
- annotation support for getType() - annotation support for getType()
- overloading of `()` needs to be in .experimental - overloading of `()` needs to be in .experimental
- do notation needs to be documented properly
- find a solution for the x.f[T](y) gotcha - find a solution for the x.f[T](y) gotcha
- ``concept`` needs to be refined, a nice name for the feature is not enough. - ``concept`` needs to be refined, a nice name for the feature is not enough.
- Destructors need to be refined. - Destructors need to be refined.