Template instantiation syntax

[KennyTM~]

Max Samukha wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2008 02:57:29 -0700, Walter Bright
> <newshound1 at digitalmars.com> wrote:
> 
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>> But it's not the << and >> that make C++ templates hard to understand.
>> I think it does. I could never get past the visual ambiguity with less 
>> than, and with the streams, the ambiguity with >>. But that isn't the 
>> worst of it, the C++ template definition syntax sets my teeth on edge.
>>
>>>  Replacing that with some other character or character sequence would
>>> make very little difference in how difficult they are to understand.
>>> It's more the lack of a straighforward equivalent for things like
>>> static if.
>> There are a lot of issues that needed improvement.
>>
>>> Changing details like the character used for this or that can make the
>>> code more or less readable though.  But that doesn't really affect how
>>> difficult it is to remember how to write something.
>> I disagree with that assessment. There are aesthetics to architecture, 
>> fonts, web pages, cars, dance, clothes, etc. Break those aesthetics, and 
>> you've got something people just don't like, even if they cannot 
>> identify why.
>>
>> Take the immutable vs invariant aesthetic. There is no technical reason 
>> to prefer one over the other. But people seem to just like immutable better.
> 
> Wait a sec! Not everybody expressed his aesthetic feeling towards
> immutable. I don't like the double m inside immutable and prefer
> invariant :).

To put more flame in... I like the C# keywords “readonly” (meaning const 
now) and “const” (meaning invariant now) more. :p