implicit template constraint notation
bearophile
bearophileHUGS at lycos.com
Mon Jun 10 15:04:00 PDT 2013
Timothee Cour:
> ah, great! So I guess it must indeed be a good idea!
I don't know. It's a cute idea, but I think it doesn't add a lot
of value. What are its advantages in D beside reducing a little
the amount of code?
> In what I suggest, the restriction is much weaker so it'd be
> more generally
> applicable: for example, 'auto myfunction ( isSomeString a,
> isInputRange
> b)' would work in what I suggest but not with the proposal in
> the link. I
> don't think it adds any confusion.
"myfunction(isSomeString a, isInputRange b)" should work.
The restriction was different, about code like:
myfunction2(isInputRange a, isInputRange b)
And then trying to instantiate myfunction2 with two types (for a
and b) that are both input ranges but are two different types.
> Should I draft a DIP?
Feel free, but be prepared to not see lot of people interested in
it.
> I'd like to get more feedback before though.
Right. Andrei is expert on this topic.
> just filed: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10325
I have added a note. It's good to help as much as possible the
person that will write the patch :-)
Bye,
bearophile
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list