A possible solution for the opIndexXxxAssign morass
Andrei Alexandrescu
SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org
Tue Oct 13 10:08:59 PDT 2009
Bill Baxter wrote:
> Huh? It didn't sound to me like it would get rid of anything, except
> for the use of the word "index" in many methods that have to do with
> index operations. That just seems confusing to me. I think the
> opIndexXxxAssign functions may need to be added, but adding them by
> overloading existing names doesn't seem a win to me.
>
> --bb
That's a good point. But something is inherently problematic about name
explosion (In the proposed solution there is still an explosion in the
count of functions that need to be written.)
Now I realize there's also a need for opSliceXxxAssign, bleh. Unless we
ascribe a distinct type to a .. b.
Andrei
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list