non-lambda overloads for lambda-only things

[Paul Backus]

On Friday, 16 April 2021 at 14:02:24 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> On 4/16/21 7:23 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> BTW, what's stopping us from supporting the above syntax? Why 
>> do we still pass the lambda as a template argument? In that 
>> past, before proper support for lambdas, there was a use case 
>> to pass a string literal, which must be passed as a template 
>> argument. If DMD cannot inline the lambda, who cares, use LDC 
>> instead.
>> 
>
> It could possibly work, if you specify the type. But I haven't 
> thought about the ramifications. I want to avoid creating 
> closures, and as you say, inlining might be affected.

You'd have to use `&` if you wanted to pass a named function 
rather than a lambda (e.g., `map(&fun)`), and you wouldn't be 
able to pass template functions (e.g., `map(&to!string)` would be 
a compile-time error).