syntax sugar: std.path::buildPath instead of from!"std.path".buildPath

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 2/15/17 3:53 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> I do see a possibility for a slightly improvement in a different area,
> in the example of "remove". If we look at the signature, without the
> constraints:
>
> Range remove
> (SwapStrategy s = SwapStrategy.stable, Range, Offset...)
> (Range range, Offset offset)
>
> Why isn't it possible to use "auto" when declaring a parameter with a
> default argument?
>
> Range remove
> (auto s = SwapStrategy.stable, Range, Offset...)
> (Range range, Offset offset)
>
> A minor improvement, but I also feel like it would lift an arbitrary
> limitation in the language.

That's nice, could you please submit as an enhancement request on bugzilla?

> I haven't followed the C++ concepts lately either and not very closely
> at all so I don't feel I can comment on the C++ concepts.

You may want to correct that if you want to make a serious proposal for 
D concepts.

> But if I
> recall correctly, you're "static if" proposal wasn't well received [1].
> But now with "if constexpr" it looks like they're changing their minds.
>
> [1] "The static if feature recently proposed for C++ [1, 2] is
> fundamentally flawed, and its adoption would be a disaster for the
> language" http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2013/n3613.pdf

"I made a terrible mistake" is spelled 
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/p0128r0.html 
here. It still has a cargo cult flavor because it introduces a new 
scope, which kinda misses the point of static if.


Andrei