Template instantiation syntax

[KennyTM~]

Walter Bright 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.
> 

I think C++'s template is hard to use because they don't have static if <g>

>>  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.