4 ms·

De gustibus non disputandum est, I personally find the C++/Java/Rust/... style postfix notation (foo.bar()) to be appalling.

• kazinator 2y ago
  TXR Lisp has this notation, combined with Lisp parethesis placement. Tather than obj.f(a, b). we have obj.(f a b). 1> (defstruct dog () (:method bark (self) (put-line "Woof!"))) #<struct-type dog> 2> (let ((d (new dog))) d.(bark)) Woof! t The dot notation is more restricted than in mainstream languages, and has a strict correspondence to underlying Lisp syntax, with read-print consistency. 3> '(qref a b c (d) e f) a.b.c.(d).e.f Cannot have a number in there; that won't go to dot notation: 4> '(qref a b 3 (d) e f) (qref a b 3 (d) e f) Chains of dot method calls work, by the way: 1> (defstruct circular () val (:method next (self) self)) #<struct-type circular> 2> (new circular val 42) #S(circular val 42) 3> *2.(next).(next).(next).(next).val 42 There must not be whitespace around the dot, though; you simply canot split this across lines. In other words: *2.(next) .(next) ;; nope! .(next) ;; what did I say? The "null safe" dot is .? The following check obj for nil; if so, they yield nil rather than trying to access the object or call a method: obj.?slot obj.?(method arg ...)