catchy phrase for this idiom?

[Denis Koroskin]

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:56:48 +0300, BCS <ao at pathlink.com> wrote:

> Reply to Denis,
>
>> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 23:56:55 +0300, BCS <ao at pathlink.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Reply to Denis,
>>>
>>>> Back on topic, I don't see anything wrong with this code. It defines
>>>> exactly one alias.
>>>> I also think that it should define exactly one /public/ alias:
>>>> template Blah(T)
>>>> {
>>>> private alias Foo!(T).A Tmp1;
>>>> private alias Bar!(Tmp1!(T)).B Tmp2;
>>>> static if (Tmp2.C!(T)) {
>>>> private alias Tmp2.ResultA Tmp3;
>>>> } else {
>>>> private alias Tmp2.ResultB Tmp3;
>>>> }
>>>> /*public*/ alias Tmp3!(Tmp2!(Tmp1!())).C Blah; }
>>> That covers my one major concern with the exactly one rule; local
>>> values.
>>>  OTOH I have used template with many public value as a type of compile
>>> time structs. It's an absolute must for anything thing that require
>>> data  structures like parsing of strings.
>>>
>> You could use a tuple or struct for that purpose:
>>  template Blah(Stuff)
>> {
>> struct Blah
>> {
>> // code that defines multiple symbols here
>> }
>> }
>
> Under some conditions (I never figured out the details) you end up being  
> forced to do that anyway. However in heavy code you can literally get MB  
> of meta data generated for struct that are never actually used for  
> anything.
>
>

These should be stripped by linked, shoudn't they?
That's a separate issue if linker doesn't do it properly.