Review of std.signal

[Robert]

> Just take the same arguments as the "signal" function, 
> something like:
>
> template signal (string name, string protection, Args...)
> {
>     mixin(signalImpl!(Args)(name, protection));
> }

Nice. But you trade it for protection having a default value, 
making the syntax more verbose in the general case.

>
> If that works, why do you have the option to specify the 
> protection at all?

So you can have a different protection for the full signal 
implementation and for the restricted part.

>
> BWT, shouldn't that assert be static?

Well the function is executed at compile time, but protection is 
still a "runtime" argument (so to speak) so I guess the answer is 
no.

Best regards,

Robert