Inline aggregate types
Jacob Carlborg via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Fri Dec 2 02:16:17 PST 2016
On 2016-12-02 10:11, Ethan Watson wrote:
> On Friday, 2 December 2016 at 08:33:17 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> But wWhat about an anonymous class as ag0aep6g mentioned?
>
> Usability I see is something that is key here. Having to do a typeof
> yourself is one extra step away from an intuitive API.
>
> So I tried making a definition like this:
>
> mixin template BitPack( Descriptor instance, string NameAlias =
> Descriptor.stringof )
> {
> mixin( GenerateBitPackBody!( Descriptor, Descriptor.stringof )() );
> }
>
> ...but I can't work out how to make the template evaluator treat
> descriptor as a templated type without explicitly defining that type as
> the first parameter.
>
> Even trying:
>
> mixin template BitPack( alias Descriptor ) if( is( typeof( Descriptor ) ) )
>
> or:
>
> mixin template BitPack( alias Descriptor ) if( __traits( compiles,
> &Descriptor ) )
>
> wasn't getting me valid code (in the case of the latter, it claims it's
> not a valid template value argument; in the former, it meant I would
> have needed to add additional constraints to the other BitPack template).
>
> I bet there's a trick out there that'll let me do what I want. But I
> won't go looking for it at least.
Using an alias without a template constraint works for me. No "typeof"
is required when using the template:
template Foo(alias T)
{
pragma(msg, __traits(identifier, T.tupleof[0]));
}
struct PackSize
{
int size;
}
void main()
{
mixin Foo!(
new class {
@PackSize( 3 ) int iSomeInt = 3;
@PackSize( 1 ) bool bSomeBool = true;
@PackSize( 4 ) int iSomeOtherInt;
}
);
}
The only difference now from your original example is "new class"
instead of "struct".
--
/Jacob Carlborg
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list