Short list with things to finish for D2

[Rainer Deyke]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> I am thinking that representing operators by their exact token
> representation is a principled approach because it allows for
> unambiguous mapping, testing with if and static if, and also allows
> saving source code by using only one string mixin. It would take more
> than just a statement that it's hackish to convince me it's hackish. I
> currently don't see the hackishness of the approach, and I consider it a
> vast improvement over the current state of affairs.

Isn't opBinary just a reduced-functionality version of opUnknownMethod
(or whatever that is/was going to be called)?

T opBinary(string op)(T rhs) {
    static if (op == "+") return data + rhs.data;
    else static if (op == "-") return data - rhs.data;
    ...
    else static assert(0, "Operator "~op~" not implemented");
}

T opUnknownMethod(string op)(T rhs) {
    static if (op == "opAdd") return data + rhs.data;
    else static if (op == "opSub") return data - rhs.data;
    ...
    else static assert(0, "Method "~op~" not implemented");
}

I'd much rather have opUnknownMethod than opBinary.  If if I have
opUnknownMethod, then opBinary becomes redundant.


-- 
Rainer Deyke - rainerd at eldwood.com