[just talk] what if implicitly typed literals were disallowed

[Adam D. Ruppe]

On Wednesday, 24 October 2012 at 23:15:35 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> there might be instances where you want to refer to the 
> built-in types. Having the keywords around (perhaps suitably 
> renamed) seems to be needed still.

Oh yes, definitely. I'm thinking of making them _int or __int 
rather than int, just freeing up the common words.

Heck I'd like to have int and char available as variable names 
anyway so hey.


> And what about _transparent substitution_ of AA literals for a 
> custom hash implementation?

yessss

> You could even make std.container take AA literals
> as initializers for hashes, and have CTFE transform that into 
> the

I think this would work today actually... just define a CTFE 
constructor, similar to std.conv.octal, though it'd still have to 
be consistent types; T[V] where T is always the same, so not 
quite suitable for named param calling or json.

> You might even be able to make BigNum literals without using 
> strings (or am I dreaming too much about this one?).

this should definitely be possible if the literals didn't 
overflow.