Template functions, can we make it more simple?

[H. S. Teoh]

On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 01:03:36AM +0200, SteveGuo wrote:
> >I like this syntax.
> >
> >I'm worried, though, about how it will interact with explicit
> >template parameters. E.g., how would you express this:
> >
> >	bool func(R,T,U)(T t, U u) { ... }
> >
> >in the new syntax?
> >
> >	bool func(R)(auto t, auto u) { ... }
> >
> >?
> >
> >What if we have variadics on either side?
> >
> >I'm still on the fence as to whether we should add the new syntax,
> >nice as it is. The current syntax is far more unambiguous, and allows
> >you to specify signature constraints on the input types directly, as
> >well as use it in the return type spec, without needing to say
> >typeof(t) or typeof(u).
> >
> >
> >T
> 
> If these syntax is feasible to template functions, is it possible to
> apply it to class template?
> 
> class A
> {
>     int a; // normal member
>     auto b; // template member?
> }

I think that's a bad idea. It's too ambiguous. What will you do with
template member functions?

	class A
	{
		auto b(auto c) { ... }
	}

What are the template parameters of A?

I still think the current syntax is better. It's a little more verbose
in some cases, but I think that's not a big deal. After having used D
templates for a while now, the syntax is actually very comfortable to
use. I think this kind of cosmetic change is not worth the effort (and
potential breakage) at this point in time.


T

-- 
A computer doesn't mind if its programs are put to purposes that don't match their names. -- D. Knuth