post qualifier and template constraint limitation, is there a reason ?

[ketmar via Digitalmars-d]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 16:55:31 +0000
deadalnix via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 17 January 2015 at 16:02:16 UTC, ketmar via 
> Digitalmars-d wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 Jan 2015 08:33:49 +0000
> > deadalnix via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This is accepted :
> >> auto fun(T)(T T) inout if(...) { ... }
> >> 
> >> This is not :
> >> auto fun(T)(T T) if(...) inout { ... }
> >> 
> >> Is there a reason ?
> > the first is easier to parse, and i it's looking better. the 
> > second is
> > just unnecessary code in parser and will not be used in the 
> > wild to the
> > extent that justifies increased complexity.
> 
> You obviously have data to back your point, both in term of 
> readability, use in the wild and complexity added in the parser. 
> Because if you don't, you have no point whatsoever and should 
> probably not be posting.
sure i have. i made alot of patches to the parser, so i know how it
is written. to make this work parser need to be changed not less than
to accept '@' before `pure`, `nothrow` and so on, and this change was
rejected due to added complexity for supporting it by devteam.

as for "will not be used" -- you can use google to count requests for
this feature. the numbers will show you how much people miss it.

i have no habit of writing tales from the faery world, you know.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20150117/09d7cfc3/attachment-0001.sig>