Comparison chart of D and C++ templates

[Chris Nicholson-Sauls]

Walter Bright wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>> In the "Pointer parameters" row, you might also want to add 
>> "delegates" to the D column, and make some mention of that ability in 
>> the "Pointer to member parameters" row (i.e. "No, D doesn't have 
>> pointers to parameters, it has delegates instead").
> 
> Good call.
> 
>> This table also makes some things clear that would be nice to have in 
>> D. The ones that jump out at me are templated constructors and 
>> overloading templated functions with other functions. 
> 
> Templated constructors, yes, but the overloading thing is unnecessary 
> and makes things more complicated than needed.

Out of curiousity, what is it in particular that makes overloading of function templates 
difficult/complicated?  I have had occasions myself where it would've been highly welcome. 
  (Especially in the context of mixins, and especially as chains of more than three or 
four static-if blocks can get mighty unwieldy.  I have a project with a /recurring/ chain 
of about seven static-if's.  I'd be much happier with seven implementor's/mixin's that are 
easier to maintain, and to add/remove.)

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls