ch-ch-changes

[Max Samukha]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 09:25:05 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:

>Max Samukha wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 06:46:29 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu
>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Max Samukha wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 06:01:29 -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu
>>>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The thing is, passing by alias allows you a host of options:
>>>>>
>>>>> * string for short functions
>>>>> * function name
>>>>> * delegate literal
>>>>> * delegate object (there's a bug in the compiler related to that, that 
>>>>> Walter knows how to fix)
>>>> Does that mean that we'll be able to do this:
>>>>
>>>> struct S
>>>> {
>>>>       bool foo(int a, int b)
>>>>      {
>>>>            return a > b;
>>>>      }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> sort!(&S().foo)(a);
>>>>
>>>> ?
>>> That I'm not sure about.
>>>
>>> Andrei
>> 
>> Compiler probably could create hidden locals for expressions not
>> evaluatable at compile time and then alias those into the template? We
>> can do that manually, but maybe the compiler could help here?
>> 
>> Anyway, it's a petty issue.
>>   
>
>It isn't. I do plan to push Walter for automatically creating aliases 
>for at least certain expressions. This strategy turned out to be 
>tremendously useful for string literals (previously you couldn't pass 
>string literals as aliases, which doubled the number of deadbeat 
>signatures I had to define).
>
>After all, it is silly to have to write:
>
>auto wtf = &fun;
>sort!(wtf)(array);
>
>because this is not allowed:
>
>sort!(&fun)(array);
>
>This is drudgery that should be taken care of automatically.
>
>
>Andrei

That would be great!