What's wrong with D's templates?
grauzone
none at example.net
Mon Dec 21 19:23:36 PST 2009
Walter Bright wrote:
> Yigal Chripun wrote:
>> But that doesn't mean the idea itself isn't valid. Perhaps a different
>> language with different goals in mind can provide a much simpler non
>> convoluted implementation and semantics for the same idea?
>> You've shown in the past that you're willing to break backward
>> compatibility in the name of progress and experiment with new ideas.
>> You can make decisions that the C++ committee will never approve.
>>
>> Doesn't that mean that this is at least worth a shot?
>
> I believe that D's template constraint feature fills the bill, it does
> everything Concepts purported to do, and more, in a simple and easily
> explained manner, except check the template body against the constraint.
>
> The latter is, in my not-so-humble opinion, a desirable feature but its
> desirability is overwhelmed by the payment in complexity and
> constrictions on the Concepts necessary to make it work.
I seriously wonder why you're saying that, while at the same time
clinging on overcomplicated failures such as const/immutable/pure or
auto ref etc...
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list