std.xml should just go

[spir]

On 02/12/2011 03:17 PM, bearophile wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis:
>
>> It's a problem of semantics. ~ is intended for eager concatenation. That's how
>> it's designed and what it's expected to mean.
>
> This is written nowhere. I am referring to my second proposal. It makes code more generic, because it allows you to use ~ for both arrays and lazy iterables in a polymorphic situation, and the computational complexity here is not a problem. I'd like to know Andrei opinion on this :-)
>
>
>> More importantly, that's how it
>> works for arrays. If you made it lower to chain, then either ~ for arrays has
>> become lazy (along with every other user-defined type which overloads
>> opBinary!"~" and made it eager as would be expected),
>
> I agree, that's why I have prosed a second alternative that lacks this problem (it doesn't use lowering, just operator overloading and a mixin).
>
>
>> Regardless, as it's not going to be implemented any time soon, there's not much
>> point in debating it right now.
>
> My second suggestion is related for Phobos only, and it's implementable now, if there's enough desire.

Holà bearophile,
what about using '*' for chaining syntax sugar. I mean, func composition is 
often written using '.' which means product (and is sometimes even spelled 
"product" for functions too), right? And product is written '*' in D... What do 
you think?

denis
-- 
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com