News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Lily Programming Language by jesserayadkins2 on Friday July 01, 2016 @09:17AM (#12015741)
I've heard a few complaints about this now, so I'm thinking of changing it. I wanted to cram a lot into a small space, and it didn't do so well.

The piping is more an example of how piping works with everything and that, yes, the new method really really is a method instead of some magical keyword.

But I stand by piping: https://lorgonblog.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/pipelining-in-f/

Re:Lily Programming Language by ebbv on Friday July 01, 2016 @09:27AM (#12015813)
I can understand why piping is attractive, and if you want it as a language defining feature as the author that's your prerogative. :)

So is the .new() method in that case an alternate constructor (i.e. constructor code will not run only the contents of the new method will) or is it a method being invoked after the constructor code runs?

Re:Lily Programming Language by jesserayadkins2 on Friday July 01, 2016 @09:34AM (#12015871)
No, there's only one constructor for any given class. The body of a class is the constructor of a class, and that constructor is made available through a method called .new. It's sort of like...Python, and imagining that you get __init__ created for you automatically. It's just two ways of doing the same inner call.
Re:Lily Programming Language by mkesper on Friday July 01, 2016 @12:29PM (#12017523)
Python omits the new() thing, didn't miss it yet.
Re:Lily Programming Language by qznc on Friday July 01, 2016 @09:24AM (#12015792)
An alternative would be Uniform Function Call Syntax: https://dlang.org/spec/function.html#pseudo-member