Clay language

[Michel Fortin]

On 2010-12-30 10:00:05 -0500, "Steven Schveighoffer" 
<schveiguy at yahoo.com> said:

> The thing I find ironic is that with the original operator overloading  
> scheme, the issue was that for types that define multiple operator  
> overloads in a similar fashion, forcing you to repeat boilerplate code. 
>   The solution to it was a mixin similar to what you are suggesting.  
> Except  now, even mundane and common operator overloads require verbose 
> template  definitions (possibly with mixins), and it's the uncommon 
> case that  benefits.  So really, we haven't made any progress (mixins 
> are still  required, except now they will be more common).  I think 
> this is one area  where D has gotten decidedly worse.  I mean, just 
> look at the difference  above between defining the opcat operator in D1 
> and your mixin solution!

I'm with you, I preferred the old design.


> As a compromise, can we work on a way to forward covariance, or to have 
>  the compiler reevaluate the template in more derived types?

I stubbled upon this yesterday:

	Template This Parameters

	TemplateThisParameters are used in member function templates to pick 
up the type of the this reference.
	import std.stdio;

	struct S
	{
		const void foo(this T)(int i)
		{
			writeln(typeid(T));
		}
	}

<http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/template.html>

Looks like you could return the type of this this way...

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin at michelf.com
http://michelf.com/