Futurism lib (futures in D)

[Kevin Bealer]

== Quote from Daniel Keep (daniel.keep+lists at gmail.com)'s article
> Kevin Bealer wrote:
...
> I tried assigning directly, and it didn't like that, hence the foreach
> loop.  Since it's working on template arguments, it *should* unroll at
> compile time.

I went through the same thing - but probably quicker because I could look at
your example.  It's not a problem; maybe its just a temporary limitation.

> > 2. You can't pass a char[10] (for example) to a function that uses a char[]
> >    input -- instead, you need to ask for the slice, for example, using
> >    syntax like:
> >
> >      make_future(& work, 1234, "some string"[]);
> >                                             ^^
> >
> >    I could probably fix this if I knew how to use static if or "is" to find
> >    out whether something is a static array or not.  For now, the above syntax
> >    is a not-too-painful workaround.
> >
> > Kevin
>
> Ah yes, I've had a few problems with this myself (in other things).
> The trick here is that instead of specialising on the type of the
> function, I'm specialising on the type of the arguments supplied.  In
> most cases, this isn't a problem, but it does cause problems for arrays
> (and possibly a few other cases).
>
> (I think that) what you need to do is to check to see if an argument is
> an array, and then check the corresponding type in the function call,
> and make any necessary casts/conversions.

I'll look into this angle.  I imagine it will require some type-list style
tuple recursion.

> Of course, the alternative is to move the function out to the template
> argument as an alias, and THEN specialise on the argument type of that
> (which I've done in my OGL/SDL safety templates), which would make it
> look like this:
>
>      make_future!(work)(1234, "some string");
>
> At least, I think it would :P

I'm going to try to get the other one smoothed out - it looks a little cleaner to
me right now.

> This is one of the reasons I love D: programming in it is like opening
> up a shiny russian doll: every time you think you know what's going on,
> there's a whole 'nother layer to play with.

"Learning is fun!" -- Bender

> Oh hang on, that was supposed to be the "peeling an onion" metaphor,
> wasn't it?  Oh well...
>
> 	-- Daniel "No, ogres are NOT like cake!"

Thanks,
Kevin