Template instantiation syntax

[Max Samukha]

On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 02:57:29 -0700, Walter Bright
<newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote:

>Bill Baxter wrote:
>> But it's not the << and >> that make C++ templates hard to understand.
>
>I think it does. I could never get past the visual ambiguity with less 
>than, and with the streams, the ambiguity with >>. But that isn't the 
>worst of it, the C++ template definition syntax sets my teeth on edge.
>
>>  Replacing that with some other character or character sequence would
>> make very little difference in how difficult they are to understand.
>> It's more the lack of a straighforward equivalent for things like
>> static if.
>
>There are a lot of issues that needed improvement.
>
>> Changing details like the character used for this or that can make the
>> code more or less readable though.  But that doesn't really affect how
>> difficult it is to remember how to write something.
>
>I disagree with that assessment. There are aesthetics to architecture, 
>fonts, web pages, cars, dance, clothes, etc. Break those aesthetics, and 
>you've got something people just don't like, even if they cannot 
>identify why.
>
>Take the immutable vs invariant aesthetic. There is no technical reason 
>to prefer one over the other. But people seem to just like immutable better.

Wait a sec! Not everybody expressed his aesthetic feeling towards
immutable. I don't like the double m inside immutable and prefer
invariant :).