foo!(bar) ==> foo{bar}

[Don]

Walter Bright wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> I would like to eventually be able to have a function like this 
>> (trivial contrived example):
>>
>> repeat(int times, void delegate() d)
>> {
>>     foreach(int i; 0..times)
>>         d();
>> }
>>
>> And call it like this:
>>
>> repeat(3)
>> {
>>     // Do stuff
>> }
>>
>> Instead of needing to use the current awkwardness of:
>>
>> repeat(3,
>> {
>>     // Do stuff
>> });
>>
>> If changing "foo!(bar)" to "foo{bar}" would cause problems with that, 
>> then I'd be against it. Otherwise, I'd be ok with the change, provided 
>> that it didn't end up becoming visually confusing in terms of "Is that 
>> a big template parameter list, or a statement block?" 
> 
> It may be a problem, because inside a template expansion, the template 
> name with no arguments represents the current instantiation.

Is that a behaviour which needs to be retained? After all, inside the 
template you have all of the template arguments, so you can write it out 
long-hand. (==> It's an issue of syntax sugar, not functionality). And 
I've found that you often want to have almost all of the arguments the 
same, except one or two different. ( ==> It's syntax sugar which might 
not be all that useful).