<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org">SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On 10/16/10 2:30 CDT, Christof Schardt wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
auto d = duck!Drawable(c); // awes<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
What about "as" ?<br>
<br>
auto d = as!Drawable(c);<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Nice too, and evokes "to". "to" was a success in spite of the fact that it's difficult to talk about (e.g. "Could you use 'to'?" "To what?" etc). I still prefer "duck" because it doesn't have this problem.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
Speaking of which, it looks like std.conv is a good place to put duck in.<br><font color="#888888">
<br>
<br>
Andrei<br>
<br></font></blockquote><div> </div></div>Hmm.. I was going to suggest /dev/null but I suppose that works too. If we have to have it, I would vote for "as" over "duck" simply because duck can be interpreted either a noun with only metaphorical relevance or as a verb with no relevance at all. On the other hand, "as" is simple and gets the point across.