Taking D to GDC Europe - let's make this tight
Ola Fosheim Grøstad via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Tue Jul 12 09:24:07 PDT 2016
On Tuesday, 12 July 2016 at 15:50:59 UTC, Ethan Watson wrote:
> that aren't necessarily up to date. What I'd rather do is have
> further examples visible online for C++17 standards to compare
> against. Either way, given Microsoft's rate, the industry will
> be able to use C++17 some time in 2021.
Well, just make sure you say you are aware of it ;-), or else
you'll get the same response that you would get from D-users if
you compared C++17 to D1...
I can get this to work:
template<class, class = void_t<>> struct has_equality :
std::false_type { };
template<class T >
struct has_equality<T, void_t<decltype(
std::declval<T&>() == std::declval<T&>()
)>> : std::true_type { };
and call it with:
if( has_equality<int>() ) ...
with C++14 you also can get rid of the parens by binding ::value
so you get
if( has_equality<int> ) ...
> horrible to do in C++. SFINAE whackiness leads me in to talking
> about the is operator in D, which leads in to talking about the
> binding system... It's all about how it directly relates to
> usage, not to what someone can do in six years time.
I am not sure if I understand the argument. Wouldn't MS have kept
D at D1 if the core issue is their backend? Why is it easier to
user D than clang/gcc?
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list