join

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 1/18/11 2:55 PM, so wrote:
>> 2. joiner uses an idiom that I've experimented with in the past: it
>> defines a local struct and returns it. As such, joiner's type is
>> impossible to express without auto. I find that idiom interesting for
>> many reasons, among which the simplest is that the code is terse,
>> compact, and doesn't pollute the namespace. I'm thinking we should do
>> the same for Appender - it doesn't make much sense to create an
>> Appender except by calling the appender() function.
>
> Didn't know there was a solution to namespace pollution.
> This one is a very nice idea, are you planning to use it in phobos in
> general?
> Retro, Stride... there should be many.

I plan to, albeit cautiously. Sometimes people would want e.g. to store 
a member of that type in a class. They still can by saying 
typeof(joiner(...)) but we don't want to make it awkward for them.

Andrei