internal/local template memebers

[Bill Baxter]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Denis Koroskin <2korden at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 08:05:41 +0400, BCS <ao at pathlink.com> wrote:
>
>> A number of times while working with template code I have found that I
>> need a variable inside a template but don't want the side effects of doing
>> so. Specifically 1) having a tmp variable results in having to explicitly
>> reference template members rather than being able to use the default member
>> rule and 2) the extra symbols seem to result in a substantial increases in
>> the compile time memory usage.
>>
>> The idea I'm floating would be to have a "local" storage class (or
>> whatever keyword is chosen) that would only be accessible from within the
>> template it is declared in:
>>
>>
>> template Foo(char[] str)
>> {
>>    local char[] first = str[0..$/2];
>>    local char[] last = str[$/2..$];
>>
>>    const char[] Foo = Foo!(first) ~ Foo!(last); // legal; note not
>> "Foo!().Foo"
>>    // const char[] Foo = Foo!(first).a ~ Foo!(last).a; // error a is not
>> accessible
>> }
>>
>> During compilation these variables would be computed, used and thrown away
>> resulting in no long term memory cost.
>>
>>
>
>
> I agree! But I would prefer re-using public/private - they make perfect
> sense here - instead of new internal/local keywords.

Problem is templates can be mixed in.  And in that case public/private
has meaning in the context of the host.

--bb