__traits so long and ugly, what about ::?

[Alix Pexton]

On 31/03/2011 18:37, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On 2011-03-31 06:35, Kagamin wrote:
>> Ary Manzana Wrote:
>>> I just hate it when you have to write too much
>>
>> hasMember!(S, "m")
>> is only 1 character longer than
>> S::hasMember("m")
>>
>> not too much for me
>
> And hasMember!(S, "m") is actually consistent with the rest of the language
> and straight forward to read for those who know the language.
> S::hasMember("m") just adds more syntax where there's no need for it, and
> makes it so that there's that much more syntax to learn and keep straight.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

I thought the :: syntax seemed pretty intuitive (keystroke savings never 
entered into my evaluation), but I seem to be in a minority on that.

After re-reading the previous discussion of __traits and its proposed 
replacement, however, I am reminded of an important point: language 
features should not have special powers that can't be replicated in 
client code.

So, with that in mind, I have to agree that using templates for things 
like hasMember has to be the way forward.

Having templates that are internal to the complier or that simply 
forward to __traits seems a bit odd to me. I think I'd rather see 
__traits simplified and more of work moved into the library, which may 
make it more versatile and easier to extend (pure speculation ^^).

Right, I'm off to go and squirrel all my uses or traits away inside 
templates, I have a sneaking suspicion that it is going to make some big 
improvements in readability ^^

A...