Real World usage of D, Today (was Re: challenge #2: implement the varargs_reduce metafunction)

[Frits van Bommel]

Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:
> The syntax that I am proposing does away with storageof and is very much 
> in spirit with the current D:
> 
> S int foo(S, T)(S T t) { }
> 
> It does exactly what it says it does, in a clear and terse manner, and 
> is 100% within the spirit of existing D:
> 
> * It's customized on symbols S and T
> 
> * It's matching (by sheer position of S and T) the storage (i.e., all of 
> the gooey fuzzy nice information about the argument passed) and the type 
> of the incoming argument
> 
> * In this example it uses the storage in the result type (e.g. const 
> goes to const)
> 
> * Inside the function can easily use either T separately or S T as a 
> group that transports the storage around. You have total flexibility 
> (and don't forget that juxtaposition is always easier than extraction).
> 
> So far we're only thinking of storage-like attributes, but a good deal 
> of information can be encoded under the loose declaration of "storage".

Would it also be possible to 'cherry-pick' attributes?
So that e.g something like S.constness expands to either 'const' or ''?

And would this mean 'raw' storage attributes would be valid template 
parameters? So that something like foo!(const) would be valid syntax?