Clay language

[so]

> First it was simpler to understand. Second it worked well with  
> inheritance.
>
> The current design requires that you know of templates and template  
> constrains, and it requires complicated workarounds if you're dealing  
> with inheritance (as illustrated by this thread). Basically, we've made  
> a simple, easy to understand feature into an expert-only one.
>
> And for what sakes? Sure the new design has the advantage that you can  
> define multiple operators in one go. But for all the cases where you  
> don't define operators to be the same variation on a theme, and even  
> more for those involving inheritance, it's more complicated now. And  
> defining multiple operators in one go wouldn't have been so hard with  
> the older regime either. All you needed was a mixin to automatically  
> generate properly named functions for each operator the opBinary  
> template can instantiate.
>
> I was always skeptical of this new syntax, and this hasn't changed.

Old style was nothing but merely C++ with named operators.
Shortcomings were obvious and i have always thinking of a solution exactly  
like this one.
Now it is quite template friendly, as it should be.

For inheritance, i am unable to find a use case that makes sense.

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/