__traits so long and ugly, what about ::?

[spir]

On 03/30/2011 09:45 PM, KennyTM~ wrote:
> On Mar 31, 11 03:28, Ary Manzana wrote:
>> I think :: is not used in the language.
>>
>> In a recent article about D I saw:
>>
>> mixin(__traits(identifier, T) ~ " " ~
>> to!string(tolower(__traits(identifier, T)[0])) ~
>> __traits(identifier, T)[1..$] ~ ";");
>>
>> What if foo::bar were an alias for __traits(foo, bar) ?
>>
>> The code would look like this:
>>
>> mixin(T::identifier ~ " " ~
>> to!string(tolower(T::identifier[0])) ~
>> T::identifier[1..$] ~ ";");
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Another uses:
>>
>> __traits(int, isArithmetic) ==> int::isArithmetic
>> __traits(C, isAbstractClass) ==> C::isAbstractClass
>>
>
> You've got the order wrong.

?

>> __traits(hasMember, S, "m") ==> S::hasMember("m")
>>
>> Well, you get the idea...
>>
>> :: might be applied to other compile time uses, but I just came up with
>> this...
>
> -1.
>
> This is confusing as :: is used to separate scopes in C++ (and PHP too). e.g.

D is not C++. D precisely exists to make things differently, ie its own way.

> struct A {
> int x;
> bool isSame(const A other) pure const { return x == other.x; }
> }
>
> void main () {
> A a = A(2), b = A(2);
> assert ( a.isSame(b)); // ok
> assert (! a::isSame(b)); // ???
> }
>
> (How about that 'meta' namespace proposal? meta.hasMember(S, "m") )

This is no improvement about __traits. I'm all for a meta namespace, but it 
should be syntactically attractive. There is no contradiction between Ary's 
proposal meta, though the exact optimal syntax may not be that one.

Denis
-- 
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com