Why the limited use of templates?
oskar.lindeREM at OVEgmail.com
Fri Aug 25 07:12:31 PDT 2006
Reiner Pope wrote:
> I wonder why many of the functions in Phobos aren't templated. For
> instance, the std.math functions could benefit from the user being able
> to specify the type used, to avoid unnecessarily precise calculations.
> Also, there's the same issue with std.string.
> And in a more general view, templates are nice because of the duck
> typing (or structural typing) that they allow. I was thinking about
> creating a string substitute class in D, but doing so would require
> redefining the std.string functions, whereas templated versions of those
> functions would be satisfied if I just duplicated all the required methods.
I have written template function replacements for many of the functions
in std.string, and I know Sean has done something along this way too.
For a rather old (and ugly) implementation, look at:
Doc (even worse):
I should wrap up my current working version any time now. The thing that
is holding me back is mainly the DDoc bug with template functions.
> I'm not asking so that I can point out this code and say 'haha, that's
> not being done properly,' but I'm actually wondering what the reasons
> are. I think perhaps they are:
> 1. They were written at a time when D had an ugly template syntax.
Most of them were written even before D had any kind of templates.
> 2. Using templates requires the source code to compile instead of just
> linking to the library files.
This is one of the disadvantages of using template functions. Others are
currently non-working DDoc generation, and harder to understand error
messages. I don't think any of them is the reason though.
> Any thoughts?
> Are there reasons why phobos shouldn't be changed to support templated
> versions of these functions?
Walter is the man behind the Phobos design. It would be interesting to
hear what his plans and philosophies are regarding this.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn