[RFC] std.experimental.concepts

[Tofu Ninja via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 26 July 2015 at 15:24:45 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 7/25/15 7:25 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>> On Saturday, 25 July 2015 at 22:09:08 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
>> wrote:
>>> On 7/25/15 5:24 PM, deadalnix wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, 25 July 2015 at 13:41:22 UTC, Andrei 
>>>> Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>>> Now stack these advantages against the advantages of 
>>>>> template
>>>>> constraints. It's a landslide.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrei
>>>>
>>>> This is a false dichotomy.
>>>
>>> We could have both (i.e. add traits to D), but would we want 
>>> to? --
>>> Andrei
>>
>> Yes. Most template code would benefit from it. For the same 
>> reason that
>> being able to bypass the type system is important, you also 
>> would like
>> that most of the code don't.
>
> I think we disagree here. It doesn't seem to me that adding 
> features to D is helpful at this point. -- Andrei

I think thats valid, D is already too big.

I for one would actually be more happy if some things were 
removed, rather than added. Template specialization and template 
constraints for one could probable be folded into the same thing. 
Structs vs Classes is weird. The default GC. Properties also 
being kinda weird. Lots of little warts.

Always hoping for a D3. It has become my HL3 for programming 
languages, it wont ever happen, but I still hope. And if it did, 
it would be the most glorious thing ever.