How about "auto" parameters?

[Ary Manzana]

On 6/3/11 11:25 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 6/3/11 10:19 AM, Matthew Ong wrote:
>> On 6/3/2011 11:47 AM, Mehrdad wrote:
>>> == Quote from Jonathan M Davis (jmdavisProg at gmx.com)'s article
>>
>>>> understand templates to use D properly - especially when dealing
>>> with Phobos -
>>>> that doesn't help at all.
>>>> I see no advantages with this idea and quite a few disadvantages.
>>> This
>>>> proposal adds absolutely nothing.
>>>> - Jonathan M Davis
>>>
>>>
>>> o__o way to bash the proposal, it actually convinced me lol...
>>
>>
>> >> proposal adds absolutely nothing.
>> You will get this frequently. Especially if you identify with Java
>> development.
>>
>> Welcome to D forum, where new idea are squashed and maybe re-discussed
>> later. Look up my name as Matthew Ong. Avoid asking the same questions.
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/
>> Notice: We *welcome feedback about the D compiler or language*,
>>
>> Not so true. Or out right should warn people as:
>>
>> Notice: Take it the way how we like it here, we are Not Burger K*ng.
>> Please see:
>> d.D.learn
>> AND MAKE sure you read this
>> d.D.NoSuchUselessSuggestion
>>
>> What do you think D forum people, at least new people here are for warn.
>> Add a bit of humor into that.
>>
>> I do see a pattern here. Just joined D forum less than 4 weeks ago.
>> Got a week off to clear my head. I think now I understand why D is still
>> such a small community in the forum.
>
> I understand how you find that an attractive conclusion to reach, but
> probably a more rational hypothesis is that some of your proposals have
> been of poor quality. That doesn't reflect poorly on your abilities, it
> just suggests that you have not yet accumulated sufficient expertise
> with D.
>
> As an example, look at the activity of a current poster who proposed
> very strongly a change in a way the intervals are handled. It was
> arguably a very poor proposal for D, and people did their best to
> explain why. That poster was outwitted by competent people with clear
> and solid arguments. Yet that poster's way to solve that cognitive
> dissonance - the low road if you ask me - was to conclude that the value
> of his proposal is high in spite of all logic and reasoning, and that
> everyone else is wrong.
>
> I suggest you don't fall for the same pattern, though clearly I
> understand how attractive it is. It slows down learning.
>
>
> Andrei


Well, in Ruby every parameter type is auto. And it works pretty well. :-)

When you invoke a method and something goes wrong, like the auto 
parameter doesn't have a method, it gives a sensible error message.

So:

void foo(auto parameter) {
   return parameter * 2;
}

could just be the same as

void foo(T)(T parameter) {
   return parameter * 2;
}

just with a nicer syntax (but I understand it doesn't add much).

I think a reply like: "this is the same as a template" is better than 
"your proposals are of poor quality". It doesn't give a nice look to D, 
specially coming from one of its main leaders.