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