Example for Documentation?

[Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d]

On 4/21/15 3:00 PM, Meta wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21 April 2015 at 17:30:08 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> quoted lambdas are indeed shorter, but the issue with them is that
>> "a<b" instantiates a different template than "a < b", whereas the
>> lambda does not.
>>
>> In fact, that is why we added shorthand lambdas to the language. Note
>> that in this case, it's just wasted code space and not a real issue.
>> but for example, RedBlackTree!(int, "a < b") is not compatible with
>> RedBlackTree!(int, "a<b"), even though they are identical.
>>
>> I'm not saying we shouldn't allow string lambdas, just that we
>> shouldn't encourage them as "proper" D code.
>
> Unfortunately, it doesn't work at all for lambdas.
>
> RedBlackTree!(int, (a, b) => a < b) tree1;
> RedBlackTree!(int, (a, b) => a < b) tree2;
>
> //Fails
> assert(is(typeof(tree1) == typeof(tree2)));

What? I thought this was the entire point of these?

Hm... let me dig it up.

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10819

http://forum.dlang.org/post/jnlqesrwxfekdsxjerlp@forum.dlang.org

Looks like that's not solved :(

I was sure we introduced this to fix this string quirkiness problem, but 
I am wrong. I can't find the discussion I remember about this triggering 
the new syntax.

Is there any possibility to move towards a solution where two identical 
context-free lambdas are equivalent when generating a template?

There were also some pretty good ideas in that thread I referenced that 
never got fleshed out.

-Steve