Multiple Specialization?

[Paul Findlay]

Xinok wrote:
> I don't like the idea of using parenthesis or braces.
> I'm trying to create a design which wouldn't require adding a new syntax to D.
> 
> I really like the idea of using tuples, that is if multiple specialization were to
> be added to D.
This is an idea I had one walk.. using something like a static switch. I 
thought this would be a more natural step for D to get some pattern 
matching on template arguments.

So from code I have seen in minid (which brilliant):

public int write(T)(MDState s)
{
   MDFile i = cast(MDFile)s.getInstanceParam(0, this);

   T val;

   static if(is(T == ubyte) || is(T == ushort) || is(T == int))
     val = s.getIntParam(1);
   else static if(is(T == float))
     val = s.getFloatParam(1);
   else static if(is(T == char) || is(T == wchar) || is(T == dchar))
     val = s.getCharParam(1);

//.. snip

   return 0;
}

a static switch version:


public int write(T)(MDState s)
{
	MDFile i = cast(MDFile)s.getInstanceParam(0, this);

	T val;

	static switch(T) {
	case(ubyte): case(ushort): case(int):
		val = s.getIntParam(1);
		break;
	case(float):
		val = s.getFloatParam(1);
		break;
	case(char): case(wchar): case(dchar):
		val = s.getCharParam(1);
		break;
	}
//.. snip

	return 0;
}

and I imagined having static switch and case been able to handle type 
tuples if for example the function prototype was

public int write(T...)(MDState s)
// no example because I am lazy

Does this make sense?

  - Paul