shouting versus dotting

[Gregor Richards]

KennyTM~ wrote:
> Michel Fortin wrote:
>> On 2008-10-05 01:14:17 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu 
>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> said:
>>
>>> I don't favor "." any more than the next guy, but I am glad there is 
>>> awareness of how unfit a choice "!" is. If you have any ideas, please 
>>> post them! Ah! I! Exclaimed! Again!
>>
>> Hum, I don't think we have much choice, it'll have to be something in 
>> this lot:
>>
>>     Positive!(real)(joke);
>>     Positive.(real)(joke);
>>     Positive#(real)(joke);
>>     Positive@(real)(joke);
>>     Positive&(real)(joke);
>>     Positive`(real)(joke);
>>     Positive´(real)(joke);
>>     Positive^(real)(joke);
>>     Positive¨(real)(joke);
>>     Positive\(real)(joke);
>>
>> Anything else I forgot?
>>
>> Or we could use special delimiter characters:
>>
>>     Positive<real>(joke);
>>     Positive“real”(joke);
>>     Positive«real»(joke);
>>     Positive#real@(joke);
>>
>> Each having its own problem though.
>>
>> My preference still goes to "!(".
>>
>> - - -
>>
>> The ".(" syntax makes me think more of something like this:
>>
>>     void func(T, alias methodOfT, A...)(T obj, A args)
>>     {
>>         obj.(methodOfT)(args);
>>     }
>>
>> which I which I could do. If methodOfT was a string, I suppose I could 
>> use string mixins, but it pushes diagnostics about misnamed methods 
>> further in the template and requires adding quotes to the template 
>> parameter when instanciating.
>>
> 
> Argh, actually I once have a strong desire making
> 
>   f«T»(x);
> 
> a valid construct, and to workaround that « and » can't be easily typed 
> you could substitute it with
> 
>   f\<T\>(x);

Yes. Trigraphs were such a good idea in C, let's bring them to D X_X

  - Gregor Richards